> Ukrainians?
>
> Oh, and those dirt-poor exploited Saudis.
That's why I said it wasn't uncomplicated - I wasn't being sophistical, simply accepting that the absence of formal colonial relations permit all sorts of countervailing developments. However, the example of Saudi Arabia corroborates rather than detracts from my argument. Saudi Arabia is a subterranean tyranny that was midwived into existence by the British Empire. Following a struggle between it and the new American Empire - then still operating on the basis of formal apartheid - the US and Britain now share a measure of influence and control over the regime, which they have used to combat their regional enemies and ensure that the appropriation of labour and resources continues to operate to the overall benefit of the US and British ruling classes.
If you try to understand the global economy apart from imperialism (past and present), then the raciological dimensions of capital accumulation are slightly less obvious - but why would you want to do a silly thing like that?