>
>that's simply not true. Marx denounced colonialism and
>imperialism as the most elaborate form of capitalism.


bc i'm pretty sure he defended british colonialism as necessary to bring asia from feudalism to capitalism.


England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

i.e. colonialism is sad but necessary.