Talk:Neo-imperialism

Added the NPOV tag, as this article currently reads with a negative bias. For example, I quote the phrase "crony corporations", which has a derogatory tone. This article needs to be cleaned up to remove any bias. Mushin 04:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that "crony corporations" is derogatory or POV. It is a well-known concept. While there can be a dispute whether a given corporation (e.g. Halliberton) is a crony corporation, the concept itself is neutral.

Note that the subject itself, neo-imperialism, implies a certain point of view, just as articles about creationism or evolution have an implied point of view. Only people who have certain geo-political beliefs are likely to use the term at all (other than to deny its validity or applicability.) Hogeye 05:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but if as you state, neo-imperialism implies a certain point of view, then either:

• The article is not NPOV, as it implies these views are fact, and should therefore retain the tag.
• The article should be edited to include some information on the fact that this term is an implied point of view.

Otherwise, a casual reader with no knowledge of the subject would be reading the opinion of the author, with no explicit warning that the information contained was not necessarily accepted as fact. That would not be a NPOV article. Mushin | Talk 14:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the evolution, creationism, exploitation theory, and labor theory of value articles for inspiration, I came up with (I hope) a sufficient hedge sentence to make it neutral. "Neo-imperialism is a politico-economic theory describing what is purported to be a modern form of imperialism." What do you think? Hogeye 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely better. I think you probably know more on the subject than me, so feel free to remove the tag if you think it's now NPOV. Mushin^talk 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Neocolonialism?

Okay, I'm the one who started this article, but now I think it should be merged to neocolonialism.

Friedman and RJII's edits

RJII, you wrote:

"Some in the United States propose that the U.S. government should mandate that businesses in foreign countries adhere to the same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the U.S. before they are allowed to trade with businesses in the U.S. (this has been advocated by Howard Dean). This may be seen as a form of neo-imperialism..."

My question is simple: According to whom? Who sees the above as a form of neo-imperialism? Friedman doesn't. He just says it's bad. He doesn't say (or even hint) that it is a form of neo-imperialism. How do you go from "X is bad according to Milton Friedman" to "X can be seen as a form of neo-imperialism and is bad according to Milton Friedman"? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Who says anything is neo-imperialism? It's not an officially defined term, as far as I know. I can give you the Merriam-Webster definition of imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" So, certainly it's imperialism. Is it "neo" imperialism? You guess is as good as mine. Maybe I'll just stick that in the imperialism article. RJII 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to insert a discussion of X as neo-imperialism, you need a source that says "X is neo-imperialism" or at least something along those lines. There is nothing in the Merriam-Webster definition that refers to regulation; notice that we're not talking about one country regulating other countries' companies here. We're talking about the United States regulating its own companies to prevent them doing business with countries that don't meet certain standards. The US government would not be imposing regulation on foreign countries - they could keep their old labor standards and simply stop doing business with US companies. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you're not talking about imperialism or neo-imperialism, but about embargo. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Business is a two way street. If you forbid US businesses from doing business with overseas business then you are in effect forbidding those foreign companties from doing businesses in the U.S.. The result is the same --a government-imposed block that prevents businesses from trading with each other. RJII 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what an embargo is. The point is that (a) the government would not be imposing anything or using any kind of force against foreign businesses, and (b) no one has ever said that any of this amounts to imperialism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would be using force against the foreign owned business. The foreign owned business would not be allowed to transfer money to a U.S. business, for example. The transaction would be stopped. The foreign business would not be allowed to use its property as it wishes. And, if that isn't enough, there is the exploitation and extortion effect --the U.S. would be saying "follow our standards or starve --we will not let you trade with the businesses in the U.S. and you will not have enough money to feed your families." RJII 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So "do what we say or we'll let you starve" = exploitation and extortion? I never knew you were a socialist, RJII. I assume you will logically have no objections if I were to write paragraphs in various articles claiming that capitalist companies who give their workers a "take it or leave it" choice between working for them or starving are engaging in exploitation, extortion, and imperialism. I wouldn't need any sources, of course, because you say that such practices are "obviously" imperialistic. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there's such a thing as explotation. If you offer to save a drowning man only on the condition that he promises to give you his life's savings, I think it's obvious that you're exploiting him. But, note that you wouldn't be initiating coercion against him. Nevertheless, I doubt any jury would enforce such a contract. At some point a free market trade becomes exploitation. Whether offering to give a hungry person money for a day of work is exploitation is entirely subjective. Many are grateful for the opportunity. RJII 03:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you are also advocating the novel idea that any kind of government regulation anywhere constitutes an initiation of force against everyone on the planet. If the government of Ghana, for example, introduces some regulation on companies in its own country, this will restrict the ability of foreign companies to do business in Ghana, so those foreign companies "would not be allowed to use their property as they wish". By your logic, if every country in the world except one - say, North Korea - adopted laissez-faire capitalism tomorrow, my property rights would still be infringed by the fact that I can't buy stuff in North Korea. Oh, the horror! -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If a government, whether the US government or the North Korean government coercively prevents trade between individuals in both countries, there is not a free market. Private property rights on both sides are being restricted by coercion. RJII 03:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway. I found a better place for the information. As a challenge to you, why don't you go and try to track it down. If you find it and delete it, I'll hide it in another article, and so on. This could be fun game. RJII 04:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)