Reply To Juan F.

fajardos at fajardos at
Thu Sep 30 22:43:01 MDT 1999

Phil wrote:

"Mexico is part of the 'underdeveloped' world, it's a Third World

"NZ is part of the FIrst World.  For most of this century, living
in NZ were about the third highest in the world.
Come visit NZ some time, and you will see very clearly the differences
between a small imperialist country and Mexico."

Ok, so my example was a bad one.  Perhaps Colombia, due to the size of
its economy and the economic, political, and military effects it has
historically had (from Bolivar's attempt to dominate the region under
"Gran Colombia", to military incursions into Veneazuela recently) on its
neighbors, is closer to what I had in mind as the comparison.

In any case, your response reveals what I consider to be a common
misconception: that status as imperialist (read the label "first world"
as that) has something to do with its citizen's standard of living, and
that a country with a high index of poverty or immiseration can't be
imperialist.  I have't difficulty in labeling India as imperialist due
to its economic and political relations with its neighbors (economic and
political subjugation of Nepal, "protection" of Bhutan, destabilization
of Pakistan and Sri Lanka, etc.) yetr it has an undeniably high rate of
poverty.  Likewise, NZ could have little poverty and still be little
more than a backwater in the Commonwealth at the beck and call of its
London masters, or run by compradors who would like to break out of that
relationship but can't yet.  You say it isn't and have supported your
assertions quite well.

In that regard, participation on this list has been a truly humbling
experience, in making me realize how much I don't know but should.

Thanks for your reply.


Juan Fajardo

More information about the Marxism mailing list