Talk:Anti-imperialism

'Imperial' Israel

So, yeah, does anyone know what the editor was talking about when they included Israel in this article: 1 ? mat_x 09:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't know the editor, but many people (including anti-imperialists and those said to be American imperialists) regard Israel as a crucial ally of the perceived US Empire. Noam Chomsky (who says he was Zionist until Zionism turned into its opposite) describes Israel as a "strategic asset" in the US goal of "maintain[ing] control over [Middle Eastern] energy reserves and the flow of petrodollars" and against Arab nationalism and independence. He also points to the useful "subsidiary services" offered by Israel, such as military and financial aid to apartheid South Africa, Mobutu's Zaire, the Latin American dictatorships of the 70s and 80s, at times when the US had difficulties in giving this kind of support directly to these US allies. Chomsky points out that Israel is totally dependent on US support, remaining the No.1 recipient of US aid, at least as long as Israel doesn't make peace with its neighbours. See his excellent book The Fateful Triangle for more. Israel is seen by many as the Americans' attack dog against Arab unity.pir 10:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gotcha. Just confusing wording originally then. Right to leave it out as the article stands, I think. mat_x 12:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some quotes? some sources?

This is pretty heady stuff: Although not all self-describing anti-imperialists understand the theoretical bases, such a tendency originates in Marxist theories of imperialism, in which imperialism is understood as the economic (rather than primarily military or political, though these are related) dominance of the First World (imperialist countries) over the Third World. All forms of Leninism are anti-imperialist, although there are strains of Marxism which are not, since they do not accept the existence of imperialism. Anti-imperialist praxis generally concentrates on trying to liberate Third World countries from the burden of imperialist exploitation. I won't stoop to labelling it a violation of "NPOV" but it would gain credibility with some reference to any particular published work and even some quoted material. The mix of Marx and the "Third World" seems especially anachronistic. The thought is impenetrable. --Wetman 07:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

overly complicated entry

This is an overly complicated entry that can do with a far simpler definition, i.e., Anti-Imperialism representing the sentiment or active struggle against Imperialism and Empire. While in Marxist thought, Imperialism is seen as the last desperate stage of Capitalism, it can also transcend this definition to include those who actively oppose wars of conquest (i.e., Republican senators of the Roman Republic, members of the Anti-Imperialist League that opposed the occupation of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, and even the Rebel Alliance in the Star Wars films).(annon user: 64.231.136.126)

I have added your suggestion (slightly changed), remember you are as free as anyone else to edit the page. Be bold.--JK the unwise 13:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Marxist, femminist and Post-modern definitions

Hi Mihnea Tudoreanu, to start I agree that the down right crazyly worded version by annon User:129.100.189.80 was indeed ineed of a complete rewrite, however I think your version also needs some work. Here is why I have made the current edits:

• Relinked national liberation movements to Category:National liberation movements, why not since there seems to be no page specifically about this. I agree one should be created but while its not why not link here it at least gives the reader a bit more info.

First of all, hi. Now let's get down to business. :) Let's see... I'm not sure if linking to a category is a good idea, but it's not worth arguing over. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Reverted Marxism and Anti-imperalism to my version.

1) Your version contains POV speculation like this "the majority of Marxists are fervent anti-imperialists. This is due to the fact that Marxism is highly egalitarian and opposes all forms of exploitation."

Very well, but the fact remains that the majority of Marxists are fervent anti-imperialists. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

2) You deleted the bit about Marx not having a specific theory of imperalism, since the section is titled Marxism and ... do you not think this is an relevant fact?

Actually, I'll let you in on a secret: I didn't edit your version and added some of my paragraphs, I edited my version and added some of your paragraphs. I must have overlooked the bit about Marx not having a specific theory of imperalism. Sorry. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

3) You deleted some of the ref's (I note you have provided no ref's)

Again, that was my mistake. The reference for my material, however, should be obvious: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism [1] Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

4) Your version contained extended discution of imperialsim which though generally correct belongs on the imperialism page rather then here. (I disagree with the point about imperalism buying off first world workers, this is a point of contention with in the marxist tradition)

It may be a point of contention within the Marxist tradition, but it is certainly established within the Leninist tradition. That's why my version refers to Leninism, not Marxism, when discussing this idea. I also don't believe my discussion of imperialism is in any way extended. It's just one extra paragraph, and it helps make things clearer for the reader. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Generally the idea of the wiki is that people will clink on the links to get more info' but I leave it for now. Lets see what other editors think.

I don't agree with your use of Leninist tradition. It not only those whom call themselves "Leninists" that follow in Lenin's tradition (for example Trotskists). Lenin's theory of imperalism certainly has a following outside of self-described "Marxist-Lenninists". With in the 'Leninist' tradition (in this wider (less POV) definition) the idea that "1st world workers benifit form 3rd world explotation" is very much disputed.--JK the unwise 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have not restored the femminism and anti-imperalism bit since I'm not 100% sure of it, though I vagely remember reading such claims at some point. However, I am more sure of the post-modern stuff (though in my POV traditional Marxism (in its more subtle forms) reconises the role of culture in imperalist domination even though it posits that the point of that domination is profit). I will look for some ref's for this, but since you provide no ref's ur self you should show some willingness to go with this for the time being at least.

--JK the unwise 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections to your paragraph on post-modernism in its current form. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

ummm lets play catch? on the playground? with a ball the size of the austro-hungarian empire?

minor edits, new feminism section

I've made an effort to reduce the (to me, obvious) pro-Marxism bias of the article, though I share it. I made some minor changes to the Marxism and Anti-Imperialism and Postmodernism and Anti-Imperialism and added a new and improved Feminism and Anti-Imperialism section. Both need expansion, badly, preferably by someone with a more thorough knowledge of each than I. Kalkin

Your changes are good.One thing that would improve the article further is if we could referance some good acamdemic works.--JK the unwise 09:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Put in some names, but they don't have articles and I don't know enough to write any. Kalkin

I've now added a short section on "right-wing anti-imperialism." I thought it ought to be mentioned. I'm not entirely happy with it as it stands, however: I don't think right-wing national liberation movements can be omitted from a section with that title, but at the same time the article focuses on Western anti-imperialism rather than national liberation movements, which I think makes sense. My less-than-satisfactory compromise is to just mention their existence and say little about them. I also added a paragraph to "Marxism and anti-imperialism" noting that "anti-imperialism" is a term used most often by Marxists. My evidence? Personal experience, and the pretty obvious record of who's been working on this article... Kalkin 04:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "right-wing anti-imperialism" section is very hard to understand. I also think the postmodernism section is a bit odd. It doesn't sound like postmodernism as I know it. I changed the title to give postcolonialism more prominence, and I think maybe it should be rewritten to focus on postcolonialism rather than postmodernism. Crucially, many postcolonialists are not postmodernists (e.g. Said!), while many more are Marxists who see economics rather than culture as central. --BobFromBrockley 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism

I think these should be two seperate articles. Current article focuses on critical theories of imperialism, and on the movement against it in the West. It either needs to be rewritten to reflect the story of anti-colonial struggles and movements internationally - the pan-African movement, the non-aligned movement, Fanon, etc OR (better) a seperate article be written along those lines. --BobFromBrockley 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right that anti-imperialism is not the same thing as anti-colonialism (in that imperialism is not the same thing as colonialism), but I am dubious that there is any such identifiable phenonenon as 'anti-colonialism'. The phrase national liberation is more common. I'll make Anti-colonialism redirect there. mgekelly 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I made anti-colonialist and anti-colonialism redirect here, as well as national liberation. All of them used to redirect to wars of national liberation, which is a bit pessimistic and certainly misleading as it implies that all anti-colonialists are necessarily in favor of military actions, and besides that the only liberations happened after wars. Thus it reduces anti-colonialism, which is an ideology shared by many left-wing people during the process of decolonization, to the national liberation wars, which were historical events parts of the anti-colonialist war. I agree with Bob who states that the two were separate articles, but in the meantime, I think it's better that they redirect here than to "wars of national liberation". Cheers & hoping to improve the serie on colonialism. Maybe some construction of templates would be good (to link colonialism, decolonization, scramble for Africa, colonization of the Americas, colonization of Africa, decolonilization of Africa, human zoos, etc. etc.) ... Lapaz 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Same for national liberation movements, which is not a synonym of NLwars... Lapaz 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Great point. I second this...

The section titled "Liberal anti-imperialism" is honestly very misleading. As many other people have pointed out the assumption that "anti-imperialism" is essentially "socialist" and "anti-capitalist" is simply wrong.

As the section discusses anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, I'll use Korea as an example.

The Donghak movement and the reform period of the early Korean Empire would probably be most closely aligned with anti-imperialism. The Donghak movement was NOT liberal (if anything, it was very much conservative, Neo-confucian, anti-Christian), but it was also NOT socialist. I understand this is somewhat controversial...Kim Il Sung / North Korea in general has a history of "claiming" Cheondoism, which itself was heavily influenced by the Donghak movement, as communitarian etc etc. However, the mainstream literature &concensus view would certainly not categorize the Donghak movement as "socialist" because it predates the October revolution, so to do so would be anachronistic anyways.

The next period of anti-Japanese independence movements in Korea under occupation would probably be more suited for the anti-Colonialism page.

An interesting tie-in would be the relations between Kim Ku/ the Korean Patriotic Organization and the Kuomintang. Yes, its true that the KPO was primarily an anti-Colonialist force, but after the expulsion of the Japanese, between 1945 and the (rigged) election of Syngman Rhee (1948), the Korean Nationalist movement to be independent of Soviet AND American influence represented primarily by Kim Ku's camp could certainly be once again categorized as anti-Imperialist. (I admit this is up for debate...and maybe too specific for the article...but I'm just trying to point out how absolutely deficient this article is in representing anti-imperialism internationally).

I'll reiterate what I said in another comment below. As I have more familiarity with East Asian history: How is it possible we don't have ANY mention of the Boxer Rebellion or the ENTIRE 2nd Sino-Japanese War? If the page would like to have a strong theoretical basis in Socialist anti-imperialism, wouldn't the Kuomintang vs PRC conflict/United Front be a fantastic reference point? Distressed CMBS (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

a reduction in scope

I think the article ought to focus exclusively on Marxist and Marxist-derived understandings of anti-imperialism. There are certainly many other ways and justifications for being opposed to imperialism, but the term and the concept are primarily used by Marxists. That's why it's so difficult I think to figure out what fits in a section on feminism, postmodernism, etc. The introduction of the article should just be explicit that it's about a concept from Marxist theory, and then perhaps include a "See also" section linking to postcolonialism, national liberation, feminist IR, and whatever else might be related. I'll go ahead and do this tomorrow if there are no objections. Kalkin 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is broadly sensible and that all that stuff should be in see also, as you suggest. However, I just want to point out that some non-Marxists have used the term and concept, and indeed contributed to our understanding of it - e.g. Hannah Arendt (in The Origins of Totalitarianism) and John A. Hobson, the latter of whom should probably be mentioned in this article, as should Rosa Luxemburg. --BobFromBrockley 10:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

'Anti-war'

While there is undoubtedly some overlap, anti-imperialism is neither logically nor historically an 'anti-war' credo. I am therefore removing the anti-war thingo, and will rm anti-imperialism from it in turn, probably. If you dn't like it, rvv me and leave your objection here. mgekelly 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Standardization for Imperialism (re. Lenin)

In this article, the Imperialism article, and the Theories of New Imperialism article, I standardized the stuff about Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Darth Sidious 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing anti-imperialism

The section highlights a very important issue but there are no citations. Is it possible to source this? --Jammoe (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (which sought to break up the Soviet Union) be a good example of right-wing anti-imperialism? --GCarty (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lack of sources

Most of the content is unsupported by sources. Please improve by including links to RS. --Ts5seeker (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Marxism Leninism.

I think this page focuses too much on the Marxist-Leninist views on imperialism. There are other anti-imperialist movements. You even included a section on right wing imperialism but neglected every other view on anti-imperialism. For example, anarchists are staunchly anti-imperialist yet they are not Leninist of any kind. It only briefly mentions it. 71.96.67.49 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I second this. How on earth does anti-colonialism redirect me to an article in a series on marxism-lenninism, called "anti-imperialism"? Obviously some political hijacking has gone on here, carry on.. Username policy1211 (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I third this. Especially when there's a "criticism" section that basically says that anti-imperialism is just anti-American. It makes no sense. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm disgusted by this article. I came looking for details on anti-colonialist leaders and activists in one-time European colonies, the kind of people who rattled the chains before the European powers started getting rid of their colonies. I'm directed to this article, which is about a related but different subject, and which is itself dominated by what is actually just one aspect of anti-imperialism. Someone in 2006 actually said "I think the article ought to focus exclusively on Marxist and Marxist-derived understandings of anti-imperialism." And someone else said "I am dubious that there is any such identifiable phenonenon as 'anti-colonialism'". Pffff. Meanwhile some of the article is Americocentric, besides the Marxocentrism. It seems to suppose all anti-imperialism came from people in the developed world, and nobody actually in a country ruled invaded and ruled by an empire ever had anything to say about it. This is the worst of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.129.255 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eight years later and still accurate: this is genuinely one of the worst articles I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It seems to have little-to-no interest in discussing the subject matter claimed by the title, but rather pushing the Marxist misdefinition of the term for use as an epithet and bizzarely insisting that Muslims continuing the fight against infidels they had been waging for over a millenium, and usually on openly imperial grounds, suddenly became based on an opposition to imperialism once their opponents gained the upper hand, despite being barely able to scrounge up any negative references to imperialism by them. Even when it does touch on actual anti-imperialism, it does so in a heavily biased and editorialized way. I've reverted an edit falsely describing Richard Pipes as a "CIA asset", but what this article frankly needs is to be rewritten from the ground up. 42Worms (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

For context this is the section I am referring to: "Through his resolution in the Second World Congress of Comintern (1920), Lenin accused the anti-imperialism of pan-Islamists of favouring the interests of the bourgeoisie, feudal landlords and religious clerics; and incited communists to compulsorily fight pan-Islamism. Since then, Soviet authorities regularly employed the charge of pan-Islamism to target Islamic dissidents for anti-Soviet activities and fomenting anti-communist rebellions."

Hard agree. There's quite a few problems with the intro section regarding Lenin's attitude towards Pan-Islamism. I'm not even sure why this is mentioned in the intro...and what the purpose is. If it is meant to "compare" Leninist theories of anti-imperialism with Pan-Islamic anti-imperialism, then it's kind of misleading. Sorry for the mess with citations format but I just can't bother right now.

First of all, the citation is lacking. The quote in Merle 2007. makes no direct mention of "bourgeoisie, feudal landlords and religious clerics." That information is in the original draft of Lenin's theses (you can read that p379. McVey, Ruth T. (2006) citation 46). Lenin here is how Pan-Islamism "...combine(s) the movement for liberation from European and American imperialism with a strengthening of the position of the khans, landlords, mullahs, etc." (Der zweite Kongreu der Kommunistichen Internationale (The Second Congress of the Communist International) (Hamburg 1921), p. 230). Lenin's opposition to Pan-Islamism is not entirely theoretical. What he's saying has to be taken into the context of pragmatic Soviet interests in Central Asia & historical Imperial Russian conflicts with the Ottoman Empire ("Turkish Imperialism") & historical Tsarist opposition to Pan-Asianism in Central Asia/Caucasus (which by the way is quoted in Landau 2015...I don't understand the point of citing this source but not including the critical context it provides??)

Second, The version of the speech as quoted in Calvin Ricklefs, Merle (2007) is often used in the literature in the context of BOTH Pan-Asianism and Pan-Islamism, specifically Lenin's opposition to Japanese and Turkish imperialism, hence why the citation is literally in a book about communism in Indonesia. Here I just want to point out how odd it is that in this entire article there is ZERO mention of anti-imperialism, for example, among the Kuomintang/PRC in their fight against Imperial Japan.

Third, the grammatical structure is extremely confusing. On my first reading, my sense is that the author was trying to convey: Islamic dissidents are charged with pan-Islamism (caveat being that the Islamic dissidents themselves may not actually subscribe to pan-islamism, which is why the author chose to say "employ" and "charged"). What's unclear to me is whether the islamic dissidents performed anti-soviet activities/anti-communist rebellions, after which the soviet government accuse them of pan-islamism. Or the islamic dissidents, in support of pan-islamism, performed anti-soviet activities/anti-comunist rebellions. I recommend reformatting the first sentence to remove the semicolon. That sentence is way too long. The second sentence should probably be rewritten entirely because it is very confusing. Distressed CMBS (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

sorry, few typos.

I meant to say "Lenin here explains how Pan-Islamism...."

and

"historical Tsarist opposition to Pan-Islamism" Distressed CMBS (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Inverted commas in entry

Why do inverted commas surround the opening word? This seems suspect to me, like it is meant for the reader to distrust the concept and not take it seriously. That is biased and it should be removed in accordance with standard policy. Oiygg (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing removal of poorly sourced paragraphs

An edit on August 9, 2021, added the content below. The same block of text was repeatedly added to the article American imperialism by various IP users identified by other editors as either socks or likely socks. The edits are poorly sourced and fail Wikipedia requirements for WP:VERIFY. Noting, too, that one of the citations (now removed) was flagged as a deprecated source. I am proposing to remove the said content from the article unless there are objections from other editors here. Thank you. -Crisantom (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I coincidentally removed most of the section without seeing your comment (I saw someone complaining about the section elsewhere on the internet, then realized that it was a rambling mess mostly disconnected with the rest of the article). I didn't take out everything; I left the first couple paragraphs since they're considerably more relevant than the rest. I don't have any objection to removing those, as they're not currently well-written or well-sourced, but there is probably something to be said about anti-imperialists looking to the US as a model. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The parts you removed were the most awkward. I will be removing at least one more paragraph that poorly synthesizes what's in the source. Granted I'm only basing this on a Google translate version of the cited text in Vietnamese, it appears the text added in the Wikipedia article does not reflect what is in the source. Crisantom (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove it. It's completely unrelated to the subject of anti-imperialist sentiment within the United States. Skerbs (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In contrast, supporters of the [[United States]] reject these views. They cited that the United States helped the national liberation movement in Asia-Africa-Latin America in the struggle for independence, against colonialism as well as fascism, to prevent the red wave under the name the "[[Workers of the world, unite!]]" of the [[Soviet Union]] and the [[communist bloc]], supporting the bourgeois revolutions fighting for national independence, democracy and social progress. During the cold war, in the climax of the struggle for freedom, pluralist democracy supported by the United States, many countries gained independence and democratization, some countries strongly supported the democracy movement, choosing to follow the capitalist path to varying degrees <ref>[http://www.qdnd.vn/100-nam-cach-mang-thang-muoi-nga-vi-dai/danh-gia-phan-tich/cach-mang-my-va-phong-trao-giai-phong-dan-toc-tren-the-gioi-521430 Cách mạng Mỹ và phong trào giải phóng dân tộc trên thế giới], Báo điện tử Quân đội nhân dân, 22/10/2017</ref>.
 	+	
 	+	
The [[American Revolution]] was the inspiration for the struggles for independence in Latin America such as Argentina, Bolivia... The revolutionaries [[Jose de San Martin]] and [[Simon Bolivar]] are often likened to [[George Washington]] of South America. The US Declaration of Independence also had a profound influence on the struggles for independence of countries around the world, including Vietnam <ref name=tele>https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/How-the-American-Revolution-Inspired-Assisted-National-Liberation-Struggles-20171023-0012.html</ref>.
 	+	
 	+	
During World War II, [[lend-lease]] <ref>{{cite book| author1= Ebbert, Jean |author2=Hall, Marie-Beth |author3=Beach, Edward Latimer | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=hUoIaQqipboC&pg=PA28 | title= Crossed Currents| page= 28| isbn= 9781574881936 | year= 1999 }}</ref> program of the United States contributed significantly to the final victory of the [[Allies of World War II|Allied power]] against the [[Axis power]]. 
 	+	
 	+	
After [[World War II]], the United States supported [[Asian]], [[European]], and [[Middle East]] countries in post-war reconstruction. [[Western Europe]], [[Israel]], [[Japan]], [[South Korea]], [[South Vietnam]], [[Singapore]] ... all benefit from this policy. By [[Marshall plan]] the economies of the countries covered by the plan, with the exception of West Germany, had grown tremendously before the war <ref>Woods, page 189-191</ref>. Within those two decades, many regions of Western Europe continued to experience unprecedented growth. [[Yugoslavia]] a communist state also benefited from the plan.
 	+	
 	+	
In Asia, U.S. aid to Japan helped the country recover rapidly, and by 1980, many Japanese products, especially automobiles and electronics, were being exported around the world. world and Japanese industry is the second largest in the world after the United States. Although once an enemy, with economic help as well as the Americans themselves, the result has conquered the hearts of the Japanese people. During the [[Allied occupation of Japan]] years, <ref>Michael Schaller, ''The American Occupation of Japan'' (Oxford, 1985)</ref>. General [[MacArthur]] was an important figure. His proposals to the president [[Truman]] to help Japan recover from the war dramatically changed the face of Japan. On the day he returned to the US, hundreds of thousands of Japanese people gathered on the street, chanting "Great marshal", many people were in tears. The memoirs of Kiichi Miyazawa ([[Japanese Prime Minister]] for the period 1991-1993) reads:
 	+	
"On April 16, 1951, MacArthur left [[Tokyo]] to return to the United States. That day, Japanese people were packed on both sides of the road from SCAP headquarters to Haneda airport. The Japanese Prime Minister and all members of the Government went to the airport to see him off. I stood behind the Minister of Finance, facing the plane. MacArthur and his wife and son shook hands with each official. "So everyone raised their hands and shouted "Glory Glory"….
 	+	
 	+	
In [[South Korea]], the [[miracle of the Han River]] left a significant impression on the United States, continued support to help stabilize and rebuild the country after the [[Korean War]].
 	+	
 	+	
In [[South Vietnam]], humanitarian aid helped the government build a stable market economy, [[Saigon]] became "The pearl of the Far East". After the Vietnam War ended, the United States also helped people evacuate with humanitarian campaigns by [[Operation Frequent Wind]]and helped [[Vietnamese boat people]] have the opportunity to settle in the United States <ref>{{cite book|last=Summers|first=Harry G.|title=Historical Atlas of the Vietnam War|publisher=Houghton Mifflin|year=1995|isbn=9780395722237|page=202}}</ref><ref name=Thompson>{{cite book|last=Thompson|first=Larry|title=Refugee Workers in the Indochinese Exodus: 1975–1982|publisher=MacFarland & Co.|year=2009|isbn=9780786445295}}</ref>{{rp|14}}.
 	+	
 	+	
Not only that, the United States also supports third world countries (including non-democracy countries). During the [[Malayan emergency]] with the help of the United States, Great Britain and many other countries, the Malaysian government defeated the insurgents <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tilman|first=Robert O.|date=1966|title=The Non-Lessons of the Malayan Emergency|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2642468|journal=Asian Survey|volume=6|issue=8|pages=407–419|doi=10.2307/2642468|jstor=2642468|issn=0004-4687}}</ref>. When the [[Yom Kippur War|Arab countries invaded Israel in 1973]], the United States assisted the country in repelling the invading forces. 
 	+	
 	+	
When [[Invasion of Kuwait|Iraq invaded Kuwait]] <ref name="fawcett">{{cite book|last=Gause|first=F. Gregory, III|chapter=The International Politics of the Gulf|title=International Relations of the Middle East|url=https://archive.org/details/internationalrel0000unse_u8i6|editor=Louise Fawcett|publisher=Oxford: The University Press|year=2005|isbn=0-19-926963-7|pages=[https://archive.org/details/internationalrel0000unse_u8i6/page/263 263]–274}}</ref>, the United States led the united nations army to repel the invaders, defeat Saddam Hussein's plot to annex Kuwait.
 	+	
 	+	
In 1979, after [[Soviet-Afghan War]] began, United States coordinated with the [[Mujahideen]] to against the puppet government of the [[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan]] supported by the Soviet Union. United States also the leader of the [[war on terror]] after [[September 11 attacks]] <ref name="Moghadam">{{cite book|title=The Globalization of Martyrdom: Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the Diffusion of Suicide Attacks|url=https://archive.org/details/globalizationofm0000mogh|last=Moghadam|first=Assaf|publisher=Johns Hopkins University|year=2008|isbn=978-0-8018-9055-0|page=[https://archive.org/details/globalizationofm0000mogh/page/48 48]}}</ref>.
 	+	
 	+	
Many African and Latin American countries are similarly supported. Millions of students from poor countries immigrate to the United States, and others receive free education in engineering, agriculture, and other disciplines. <ref name="immigrationun">{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.shtml|title=United Nations Population Division {{!}} Department of Economic and Social Affairs|website=www.un.org|accessdate =3 October 2017}}</ref>. Nowaday, the United States is the fulcrum of the progressive mankind, the outpost of the freedom world, and the goal of the world's democratic movement. 
 	+	
 	+	
The strength of the United States and the capitalist system can be seen as the fruit of an ideology that not only prevents wars from the communist bloc but is the inspiration and support for capitalism countries and democracy movements for national liberation, freedom and democracy in [[Asia]], [[Africa]] and [[Latin America]].

"Anti-Colonialism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-Colonialism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 8#Anti-Colonialism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)