Unthinking Majority wrote:The only way to get rid of imperialism is to get rid of the competition between countries and the existential threats countries pose to each other.
If the US didn't partake in imperialism and the USSR did, the USSR may have won the Cold War. If hundreds of years ago France and Spain set up overseas colonies and Britain chose not to then it's possible France or Spain could have gained enough extra wealth and power to defeat Britain militarily. This was a time when countries went to war constantly, and men like Napoleon ruled.
A wolf doesn't kill and eat a rabbit because a wolf is mean or cruel, it does it to survive.
The US and China pose real threats to each other, and they're competing over the same resources for power and control to make their countries more secure and prosperous. The US doesn't blow up Arabs in the middle-east because they hate Muslims, they do it to control access to oil resources, because their entire economy and military runs on oil, and if they left the middle-east alone the Russians and Chinese would fill the vacuum and threaten to control much of the world's oil resources, and could weaponize it against the US via oil embargos just as OPEC did in the 1973 oil crisis. Running an economy and a military on $20 a barrel can ravage a country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Unthinking, we are beyond the past types of imperialism. We are into the nuclear age. If you think survival is about that kind of aggression then we as a human species are doomed.
It is as this quote says. Einstein the socialist said:
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage and resolution than are needed to prepare for war."
— In a letter to Congressman Robert Hale, 1946; later published in Einstein on Peace, 1988
"I look upon myself as a man. Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
— To The Saturday Evening Post, October 1929
"What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."
— From The World As I See It, 1949
What does this mean here? What I highlighted in yellow Unthinking.
It is not about survival. They have enough to eat, educations, water, transportation, medicine, etc. relative to other nations who lack basics. Mexico has workers getting paid very low salaries. It is extremely hard.
It is not about surviving. It is the elites wanting MORE. MORE and MORE. And not being satisfied. Why must they continue to want more than what is enough for the most humble of people? A life were the basics are covered and you have freedom to become your best potential is ENOUGH. No need to enslave others with bad class systems and wanting to be better and be dominant or you can't exist. Learn to co-exist and don't compete. Cooperate and SHARE. Learn what five year olds have to learn to do in kindergarten. Share the damn toys and respect the rights of the others. Because dominating it all is not fun for anyone.