[lbo-talk] letter to editor

Ricky Page rfpage2008 at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 26 13:16:54 PDT 2010


Dennis that would be true in a colonalist form of imperialism, were there was no attempt at state-building. But with the collapse of colonialism in the post WWII period, a new form of imperialism was developed using native elites- creating the system of neo-colonialism. Once again we can see this geo-political evolution by looking at the "Cold"War competition,by the way the "Cold" War itself was a myth- in fact the so-called "Cold" War began at the end of WWI, with the invasion of Russian territory by the Western imperialist and Japan, in support of the "Whites" in the Russian Civil War.

________________________________ From: Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 3:58:29 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] letter to editor

At 12:42 PM 8/26/2010, Ricky Page wrote:


> As for the 1960's, the fact that the US was the leading Imperialist power, it
>could not afford to alianate the emerging "Third
> World"

How does this make sense?  Being the leading imperialist power is by definition alienating.  Where is this concern about alienation expressed in U.S. actions in Latin America at anytime in the last 100 plus years, much less in the '60s?


> Nonetheless, the history of the past twenty-years, with its neo-liberalism and
>regression of social rights supports my and Wojeks arguement.

Only twenty years?  What happened in 1990 that supports your "arguement"?

___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list