To be sure, many (all?) of former US imperial rivals and enemies still own colonies here and there. I was, however, thinking of change in global politics of capitalism:
from inter-imperialist rivalry
to US hegemony I (from WW2 to the early 1970s)
to US hegemony II (from the early 1970s to present).
It's possible that we are now in a period of transition from US hegemony II to a new system. Gramsci said that when "the old is dying and the new cannot be born," in an interregnum "a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." -- Yoshie
^^^^^^^ CB: Yea, I was thinking about the Stan Goff thread. One characteristic of this period of imperialism, wellnoted, _is_ that the U.S. is qualitatively different from all other imperialist countries, the rest of the G-7 and lesser imperialist countries.
It is often said that Lenin's description of imperialism at the beginning of the 20th Century is out of date. Ironic to argue _today_ for a Lenin model of interimperialist rivalry of relatively equal bad actors when that is exactly what is out of date in Lenin's model. Imperialism today puts all its eggs ( or grenades) in one basket. No other imperialist country has troops and bases in nearly as many countries as the U.S. So, it is entirely appropriate to single out the U.S. for political , cultural, social ( not military) opposition. Peaceful opposition to the militarist rogue state. Let a thousand Bolivarian revolutions bloom.