> joanna wrote:
> > So, I don't quite follow: if the colonies were a source of wealth for
> > the Brit Empire -- the gold of India, the whatever of Palestine, how
> > would letting them go benefit the Brits?
> Imperialism does NOT benefit the imperialist nation _as a whole_ -- it
> costs. It benefits certain interests within the imperialist power. And
> the benefit can be other than economic. I'm speculating here, and perhpa
> someone can confirm or negate. The benefit of India to the British
> Ruling Class was that it produced a class of civil-servants who were
> the backbone of English civil society. The costs of that body of civil
> servants were _mostly_ but not wholly born by India; some of the costs
> were passed on to the British working class. I.e., the empire served in
> part as a way to pump surplus value out of british workers.
This seems quite contorted. At best mistaking consequence for cause and intention.