"the essential commonality of capitalism and libertarianism." Really? And here I was thinking the 19th and 20th Century colonial empires in Asia, Africa, the Middle-East and elsewhere were brutal, racist tyrannies whereas in fact they were essentially libertarian and created by hard working upright people who were good enough to put slaves and children to work. I'll try not to be so ungrateful in future.

A big fat yawn ... who cares?

Was I morally bankrupt to support the defeat of US imperialism in Vietnam?

Was I morally bankrupt to support the defeat of Russian imperialism in Afghanistan?

Am I morally bankrupt to support the defeat of US imperialism today around the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq?

Am I morally bankrupt to support the defeat of Chinese imperialism around the wrold, including in Tibet?

Am I morally bankrupt to oppose Australian imperialism in places like the Solomon Islands, PNG, Vanuatu, Nauru, the Cook Islands and East Timor?

Apparently it is easier to hurl peurile abuse at the Left than to recognise imperialism in whatever guise as the greatest threat to the lives of ordinary people.

Passy,
Yes.

From your responsse ChrisPer I take it you supported (or would have if you were not politically active then) Russian imperialism, and that you support the continuing Chinese occupation of Tibet.

You seem by your answer to support all imperialist actions (not just, as most apologists for Western capitalism do, the actions of Western imperialists.) That is an interesting moral and political position. You may have problems when the interests of Chinese imperialism and US imperialism clash.

Passy

The question of whether you’re morally bankrupt revolves around whether you can recognise that some of the alternatives are even worse than the regimes you oppose. By taking the position that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” extreme anti-americanism and anti-imperialism can lead to supporting and celebrating the “successes” of some pretty vile regimes.

I’m no apologist for the US-backed regime in Afghanistan, but I feel the Taliban would be infinitely worse. Ditto the coalition of Islamofascists and Baathists looking to seize power in Iraq. Comparing North and South Korea, I’d prefer the South. Comparing communist China and (historically) capitalist Hong Kong, I’d prefer Honkers. The racist regime of Ian Smith was despicable, and like many I rejoiced when it was overthrown. But the sufferings of the Zimbabwean people under his successor have been even worse, and one-eyed anti-imperialism still deludes some to the murderous reality of Mugabe’s regime.

Equally, I recognise that leftist regimes are sometimes better than their predecessors. Repressive and murderous though they were/are, I’d definitely prefer the Sandinistas to Somoza and Castro to Batista. But I don’t feel my pleasure that Somoza or Batista were overthrown obliges me to be blinkered to the many faults of their successors.

Australia’s intervention in East Timor is – admittedly belatedly and imperfectly – an attempt to shore up democracy and independence there. I dispute that it even deserves the name “imperialist”, still less that it’s on a moral par with the Indonesian occupation that preceded it.