Do you think liberals are too eager to blame the third worlds' problems on past imperialist policies from the late 19th and early 20th century?

I am but not in the way that the reactionary types claim. While imperialism certainly played a role, the elephant in the room is "neoliberalism" or privatization of the economy and social services (you know, what's *ahem supposed to make everything better). During the cold war, the US government orchestrated countless coups against governments who tried to expand social services under the guise of "fighting communism" (even though the social safety net that the regime imposed was weaker than that present in the United States) so corporate entities could expand the wealth gap without facing a crisis of overproduction by exploiting labor from the third world. And whenever a country tries to break the mold they face economic warfare where the sanctions are imposed and the economy goes to shit as a result (case and point, Venezuela) and neoliberals can say "see, see, socialism/communism [they love to deliberately conflate them] causes people to starve" narrative. So no, the third world isn't in the state that it's in because of the history of imperialism, it's because of the present reality of mass privatization. This is a classic example of the right being correct but not for the reasons that they claim.
Do you think liberals are too eager to blame the third worlds' problems on past imperialist policies from the late 19th and early 20th century?
0
4
Add Opinion