[lbo-talk] letter to editor

[Ricky Page]

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