From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Herschelkrustofsky's version was far more neutral, as it discusses the concept of neocolonialism, which is a well known and accepted concept in anthropology, sociology, and politics. Whether or not one may find a modern example of it is another matter, or whether any given example is in fact an example. Regardless, it is no more the purview of "Marxists" and "conspiracy theorists" than global warming. It is a matter worthy of debate; however, Adam Carr's revision is little more than a screed that dismisses the very notion out of hand. I've been using Wikipedia for a long time now, and I'm sorry to say this is the worst example I've yet seen of the work being used as a soapbox for an individual's personal beliefs.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

When the above editor acquires an identity I will discuss these matters with him or her. Adam 00:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My name is Jason Godesky; I can be contacted at I've taken a few moments to draft what might be a much more neutral appraisal of the concept of neocolonialism; you may want to consider using something along these lines instead:

"Neocolonialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization, and cultural forces to control a country (usually former European colonies in Africa or Asia) in lieu of direct military or political control. Such control can be economic, cultural, or linguistic; by promoting one's own culture, language or media in the colony, corporations embedded in that culture can then make greater headway in opening the markets in those countries. Thus, neocolonialism would be the end result of relatively benign business interests leading to deleterious cultural effects.

The term 'neocolonialism' was first coined by Kofi Ankomah, the first post-independence president of Ghana, and has been discussed by a number of twentieth century scholars and philosophers, including Jean-Paul Sartre and Noam Chomsky.

While the concept of neocolonialism is certainly accepted by most experts, there are no undisputed examples of its existence in the real world. For every given country where neocolonialism is argued to exist, others deny that this is the case. Given the lack of direct control inherent in the very concept of neocolonialism, it is unlikely any specific country will ever be truly proven to be a concrete example of neocolonialism."

"While the concept of neocolonialism is certainly accepted by most experts. . ." A fine example of weasel words.
Aeknipe 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Jason, your version merely repeats, in a slightly more sophisticated form, the basic problem with the version I erased. It takes the existence of a phenomenon called neocolonialism to be a fact, whereas in reality it is only an opinion.

You write that "Neocolonialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization, and cultural forces to control a country." This sentence implies that an un-named someone (presumably the governments of the capitalist countries) has the desire to control other countries, and uses capitalism etc to achieve this end. This is a statement of political belief, not of fact. It might be true, or it might not be true, but it cannot be simply presented as a fact in the same category as "Paris is the capital of France."

In your subsequent paragraphs you appear to retreat from this position, by arguing that the penetration of the markets of developing countries by corporations amounts to neocolonialism, even if there is no conscious neocolonial intent. This is certainly a defensible position, which would command more support than the version given in the previous paragraph, but it is still only a theory, which would find vigorous opposition in some quarters.

You write that "The concept of neocolonialism is certainly accepted by most experts." This is quite untrue. Presumably "experts" means economists and political scientists. Those economists and political scientists who have a broadly marxian or radical view of the world will argue that there is such a thing as neocolonialism, while those of a conservative persuasion will argue that there is not. I don't know which school commands the majority view, but it is not possible to say that "most experts" hold any one view on this subject.

Your reference to "Kofi Ankomah" is presumably intended to be to Kwame Nkrumah, first president of Ghana. I don't know whether he invented the term neocolonialism, although he certainly used it. I suspect it was actually invented by European Marxist intellectuals. This subject needs further research.

Adam 08:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Adam 08:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jason, I would not take anything that Adam says here seriously. Using his argument, it were possible to assert as well that there is no provable existence of colonialism, either -- indeed, the British continue to suggest, to this day, that they were only helping out the backward, uncivilized people of, for instance, India, by converting their land into a vast opium plantation (see The White Man's Burden).
As for Adam's pious warnings about the danger of generalizing about expert opinion, you will find elsewhere (see Lyndon LaRouche) that he is not adverse to grand and sweeping generalizations about all sorts of opinions, when it suits his POV. Note the insinuation above, BTW, that those who assert the existence of neocolonialism are likely to be Marxists or radicals. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


My source for etymology:

While I only have a BS in anthropology, neocolonialism was always presented in the books I read as an accepted fact, and I did not recieve a Marxist or otherwise radical education. The tone of the current article makes neocolonialism sound like a far-fetched, radical fringe theory.

I would actually consider anthropologists to be the most relevant experts here, not economists or political scientists, whose training is not nearly as interested in the subtle ways cultures influence one another.

I will grant that neocolonialism is embraced most exuberantly by radicals; that does not make the idea itself radical, any more than the idea of global warming is radical because many radicals believe it.

Finally, of all my reading on the subject, this is the first I have ever seen an argument that included any serious reference to conscious desire. All my previous reading assumed neocolonialism to be the product of unconscious societal forces. I agree such an argument would be quite baseless, but I would like to know where you found it, as I've never come across such a foolish argument before.

Hi, I agree with the comment in the second paragraph of this section, that the tone of the article is negative and more skeptical of neocolonialism as a trend/practice. Guppy 16:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


In response: The link you give is to an academic discourse conducted entirely within a marxian ideological framwork, even though not acknowledged to be such. Nearly all "postcolonial studies" or whatever are conducted within this framework, so it not surprising that if your anthropology course was run by people operating from this position you didn't even notice the marxian assumptions that underlay it. So it may be news to you that outside the academy, the tenets of marxism are not universally accepted, and its propositions cannot be put forward as facts.

Your analogy with global warming is specious. The debate about global warming is a scientific one: either there is global warming or there is not. "Neocolonialism" is not a proposition in physics or chemistry that can be proved or disproved. It is a statement of political theory. Virtually all statements of political theory are contested, and this must always be noted in any article. The tenets of any political theory cannot be stated as though they were facts.

On your third point, it was you who wrote "Neocolonialism is the practice of using capitalism, globalization, and cultural forces to control a country." This passage, and particularly the verb "use," clearly suggests a conscious intention on the part of the neocolonialists to control other countries. If that's not what you meant you should write more clearly.

Adam 03:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


So, your argument boils down to, "Sure it's accepted by academics, but they're all radical left-wing Marxists"? Marxist views in anthropology are strong; they are also clearly labeled as such. There is a strong Marxist argument in postcolonial studies, but not all such studies are Marxist. Note that there are certain issues that Marxists accept not because they are Marxist, but because they are accepted by all; included here is the idea that globalization is an exchange of cultures, but never on even terms. One culture imposes far more of itself on the other; this has always been true, all the way back to Hellenism. It is true that Marxists use this fact as a basis of many arguments which are, in fact, Marxist (that is, they focus on the essence of class struggles and posit an ongoing conflict between the proletariat and the burgeoise), while many other political positions prefer to ignore the fact or at least downplay its relevance, but this does not make it a point of view any more than the economic data points used in any given analysis are of themselves part of their interpretation.

You're quite right that nearly all statements of political theory are contested, but that you consider the parallel of global warming specious shows a weak understanding of the process of science. Scientific theories, too, are always contested; even well-established ones, when the evidence to do so is presented. Taken to a Humean level, there is nothing that cannot be contested; are there any facts at all?

Given that we are dealing here with an idea, it would seem Wikipedia's duty to outline the actual idea itself, regardless of one's attitudes about that idea. The current article repudiates its reality before it even looks at what it is. I've read polemics on the issue that were less slanted than this.

Even for those who hold that neocolonialism does not actually exist, no one can deny that it is, in fact, a political theory. So tell us what that theory is before you tell us how bogus it is. In similar manner, the concept of "matriarchy" does, in fact, exist, even though no actual, real world matriarchy has ever existed. The idea, however, does. Note that in the article on [matriarchy], we're told what it is before we go into the discussions of whether or not one ever existed.

Frankly, I think the application of the idea to any given culture, or in the case of neocolonialism any given state, should be left to the reader, based on a thorough treatment of the theory. But if you must include some information in the article from the minority like yourself who refuse to acknowledge the influence of Western culture on the rest of the world, then at least relegate it to a single section where it is addressed directly, rather than permeating it with tone and snide parentheticals throughout the entire article. Let your readers know what the idea is, and then decide for themselves whether this or that state is or isn't a good example.


I'm not inclined to debate further with someone who misrepresents what I say in such a stupid and childish manner. Where do I "refuse to acknowledge the influence of Western culture on the rest of the world"? You are free to disagree with me but please do not treat me like an idiot.

I have (of course) no objection to the article setting out, at any length you like, the theory of neocolonialism - provided it is presented as a theory and not as a fact, and provided that contrary views are also set out, or at least mentioned. I will continue to monitor the article to ensure that this remains the case.

Adam 06:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


What has the section Africa: Neocolonialist allegations against the IMF got to do with the topic of the article? For it to be relevant, it must be shown that the IMF and the WB lend money to poor countries with the intention of gaining political control over them, as was the case with classical imperialism. This is not even alleged in the article, let alone demonstrated. African countries are in debt because they borrowed money which they now cannot repay. It may have been foolish of them to borrow so much money, and it may have been foolish of these institutions to lend it to them, and I agree that the debt should now be written off, but what has this got to do with the alleged phenomenon of "neo-colonialism"? To suggest that the IMF or the WB have political control over these countries is absurd. If James Wolfensohn really was running Liberia (for example) it would be in much better shape than it is at present. Real imperialists understood that countries have to be productive to be profitable. The problem with these countries is that they are being shut out of world markets by rich-country protectionism, not that they are being "neo-colonised." If this is the best evidence post-Marxist editors can come up for the existence of neo-colonialism, they should give the game away. Adam 14:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • First, spare me the polemics, please. This is not the venue for a political discussion, though you have made your bias abundantly clear, which I believe damages your NPOV credibility for this article. It isn't necessary to show whether this is the case or not, suffice to say that those who view neocolonialism as the reality believe this to be true, hence, it is phrased as an allegation, which for our pruposes is enough. We are not here to set out whether necolonialism is a correct method to analayze post-colonial reality, but that parties, individuals and groups in politics, academia, etc. believe that it amounts to as such (and how). Lastly, I do think I am making progress here - the IMF alleged connection to neocolonialism was present in a previous revision you approved of. So what is the problem here, too much history and not enough historically-ungrounded abstractions? Sounds to me as if you wish to keep this article as vague as possible so as to avoid concrete examples from history as to how neocolonialism was viewed, whether inadvertantly or not, I believe that this amounts to bias on your part. You are on shakey intellectual grounds here, I think. To sum up, whether you or I think it is in reality absurd (or whether you or I think it is pertinent) is really quite irrelavent in showing what anti-neocolonialists thinkers maintain with respect to the IMF as neocolonialist force. I am genuinely surprised by your reaction, it was not what I would have expected based on your ample contributions to WP (which addmittedly, I have not looked into much, though now I am courious. I remain hopeful that the approach you have taken here is an exception rather than the rule. El_C
  • I realize I am being somewhat harsh, but your "If this is the best evidence post-Marxist -editors- can come up for the existence of neo-colonialism, they should give the game away," is rather out of line. You presume that I (as the editorS) in question am trying to prove -the existence neo-colonialism-, rather than explaining -what proponents of the concept think-. That is quite a leap. It is also unprofessional and discourtious (and also, maybe it isn't the best -they- can come up with, I only rewrote this article today). At any rate, if this is the best -they- (the proponents, not yours truly, aka the -editors-) can come up with, then you should be happy that they are providing such an allegedly -absurd- notion(in your POV, which incidentally, by no means has a monopoly over -the truth-); if it is indeed such a poor argument then this reduces the logical credibility behind their construct, thus, certain -editors- with a right-wing POV ultimately win. No? I urge you to avoid any further quasi-personal attacks (about infamous editors, their -alleged game-, and their -alleged absurdities-. Now, having said all that, I am hopeful that any further discourse between us could proceed professionally, with mutual respect and without impertinent and questionable insinuations, platitudes and inuendo. El_C

From the link (of the article by the African/American historian) I just added:

  • " The bosses of Africa are the WB and the IMF. Their programme is to integrate Africa into a system of economic neo-colonialism...Most current Structural Adjustment and Economic Reform Programs around the world have a common international context of origin. In this site we explore some of the various dimensions of the IMF record not only in Africa but also in Asia and the Caribbean because we observe similarities in terms of initial conditions, imposed conditionalities, ideological orientations, implicit and explicit objectives and impact on the countries hosting the IMF programs. These consequences include the following:

1. Forced devaluation

2. Forced privatization

3. A free fall in the value of the domestic currency

4. Lower purchasing power

5. A fall in the standard of living

6. Unemployment and retrenchment of workers

7. Inflation and the phenomenon of rising prices

8. Food riots and social unrest

9. Challenges to trade unions and labor

10. Substantial challenges to human rights organizations

11. Increased mortality because of the compulsory removal of subsidies on health

12. Declines in school attendance along gender lines

13. Challenges towards democratic governance

14. The rise and/or consolidation of military dictatorships

15. De-industrialization as the economies are inundated with cheap foreign products

16. Reduction in the number of nationals owning industries due to privatization and an invasion of foreign capitalists

17. Intensified unequal development amongst ethnic groups

18. Ethnic tension

19. Transfer of as much as 40% of the domestic budget in debt repayment to the creditors/bankers of Euro-America

20. De facto loss of sovereignty

21. The feminization of poverty

22. Child Labor- reluctantly sanctioned by impoverished/"SAPPED" parents who depend on the child's meager supplement to make ends meet

23. The proliferation of terrorist organizations, armed conflict or/and resistance movements- with recruits from the expanding army of the unemployed"

Whether Mr. Adam views these claims as absurd or correct (or somewhere in between) is irrelavent, these -views- exist (views of people who argue that neocolonialism exists — in this instance, viz. the IMF). Mr. Adam poses the question " what the section 'Africa: Neocolonialist allegations against the IMF' got to do with the topic of the article? ," and based on the little I have provided, I believe that to be an 'absurd' question. The IMF's neocol. role, as is alleged by some proponents of the construct in being the case, is very topical, ladies and gentlemen, to an article titled 'necolonialism.' And, as mentioned, it was already written (albeit in a very cursory form) before I ever encountered this article and began my rewrite of it less two days ago and was not then something Mr. Adam seem to have objected to (I see no edits to that effect, at least), but he now objects to me providing details as to what it means, as well, he also attempts to stir an impertinent POV discussion as to whether neocolonialism exists (!). El_C

Missing image[edit]

What happened to the image that was deleted? I thought that it was highly appropriate. Was there a copyright problem? --H.K. 15:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs[edit]

I am troubled by the emphasis on Jeffrey Sachs. Although the quotes provided are highly relevant, I fear that the reader might draw the inference that Sachs is overall an opponent of neocolonialism, which is far from the truth. It is worth taking a look at the role he played as an advisor to countries such as Bolivia and Russia, or his current drive for population reduction, where his POV seems to be cloned from that of Robert MacNamara. --H.K. 15:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact the emphasis on Sachs is rather absurd. Is critique of neocolonialism only important when it comes ( in very partial way) from white establishment figures? What about people like Mongo Beti who fought their whole live against neocolonialism?

war is capitalism with its gloves off


The bias of the administrative editors on this topic is so blatantly obvious, it's infuriating. It is impossible for them to report the concept of neocolonialism to any of degree of accuracy, since every edit by them, contains less and less discussion, and more and more straw-man type of characterization. Just another example of the uselessness of wikipedia. Adam and others, obviously cannot leave their personal political beliefs aside to consider the topic of neocolonialism seriously. So why is he editing? Because he has an agenda to support.

Alot of these articles are really biased indeed including this one. Is it not at least possible to have both sides of the argument equally presented if a NPOV is not possible? I don't think any of the above comments about this article were childish but presented their arguments rationally and now you simply seem to ignore them. I don't need a reply to what I have written but some of the other readers do deserve a reply simply because they have presented a credible argument against certain points in your aricle and it is your job to get the facts right. Isn't it?

Although I disagree with the characterization of Wikipedia as useless, and although I am generally sympathetic to the viewpoint expounded throughout this article, I must agree that the article is quite biased. Much of it reads more like a screed or (more generously) an editorial on the evils of neocolonialism (or, if I am to thoroughly reject bias, so-called neocolonialism). One example is the description of overfishing by MNCs. The author of this section describes causation and "direct opposition" that do not find sufficient support in the sources cited. Other examples abound. I implore the editors to closely examine the bias of this article to improve its credibility and usefulness. Jmedlong (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


The article features sentences like "In Africa, the French played a prominent role in charges of conducting a neocolonialist policy" without giving examples or sources. I think if somebody raises allegations like those they should be well-founded and more specific. Chevalier de la charrette 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please enter {{fact}} at those points in the article that you feel need further sourcing? Any specifics you can give would be helpful in improving the article. Thanks T L Miles (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
On further review, this concern appears to be from December 2006 (not 2007 as the tag on the article reads), and the user above has't been active since May 2007. I'm going to give a quick review of the article, and if it looks ok, I'll remove the warning tag, while adding "fact" tags (and similar) when I see problems. I'd encourage others to do the same. This is an important and much discussed concept and deserves a good article.T L Miles (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


I've wikified the article a great deal and removed the tag. MKula 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kwame Nkrumah[edit]

Nkrumah was a major contributor to the formation of the idea of neocolonialism, so I think it is appropriate to mention him. -- La la ooh 23 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

economic imperialism[edit]

We've just moved the article previously known as Economic imperialism to Economic imperialism (economics) to try to clarify things a bit. The disambiguation tag redirects here, and I'm likely going to redirect a bunch of other stuff here as well for economic imperialism. But that's only sorta this page, so I wanted to exhort anyone who feels up to it to develop a general Economic imperialism page. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The above also explains what I'm sure looks like a strange disambiguation line up top of this article. I'm going to redirect Economic imperialism here now instead of to Economic imperialism (economics). CRETOG8(t/c) 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:VP6.jpg[edit]

The image Image:VP6.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

China and East Asia[edit]

I don't think they should be put in the same bunch as the Western powers, simply because they actually help their economies to develop than actually hindering them.

Don't the "Western powers" also help these economies' development? In fact the biggest problem for "third world" countries is lack of foreign trade, not isolation. However, this is not a forum so we can take this debate somewhere else. Also, do a search on foreign aid. Aaker (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Farland Islands War 1982[edit]

wouldnt that be consided a neocolinal war? the frist in fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Francophonie is a neocolonial political machine, which only perpetuates our alienation, but the usage of French language does not mean that one is an agent of a foreign power, and I write in French to tell the French that I am not French. (Quote by Kateb Yacine in French)

I put two French links, 9 and 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Chieftains and Guns[edit]

"Just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains with the military means to maintain control as they extracted natural resources."

In reference to China, the preceding phrase has numerous problems.

Firstly, the phrase claims to reference various sources, non of which use the term 'chieftains'.

Secondly, we observe the logical paradox: How do you 'maintain control' by supplying weapons?

Common sense would suggest that the very last thing one would do in order to control somebody is to sell them weapons! In reality, states supply weapons to willing allies and companies supply weapons to paying customers. They are in fact, mutually dependent relationships and it is tendentious to suggest a one-way process of control.

The editor is perhaps confusing two phenomena. On the one hand, there are 15th-18th century patterns of trade (in which European-made guns were supplied to various African states and trading partners). On the other, 19-20th century patterns of colonial occupation in which European empires created military forces using local troops that were usually commanded by European officers and whose role was to combat national resistance. But neither phenomena fits the model described by the offending sentence.

Also, the use of the phrase 'African chieftains' seems inherently racist, conjuring up stereotypical images of pith helmets and grass skirts. It is a term specifically used to belittle African political and spiritual leaders. Are Gladstone or Bismark patronizingly referred to as 'chieftains'?

Obviously, the violence in Sudan is a source of great suffering and controversy. But, simplistic, formulaic thinking is not necessarily the best way to analyse it. Ackees (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm not an expert on this subject, but I believe there may be a POV problem here. I just skimmed the whole article and it seems that all it is does is discuss the various problems and controversies it has caused. For every political concept, there are good points and bad points. I'd like to see some of the good points discussed. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:UN Human Development Report 2010 1.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:UN Human Development Report 2010 1.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


It seems the French neocolonialism is described in detail, while the more prevalent US\UK neocolonialism, like the 1953 Iranian coup d'état for example, are dismissed with only a picture & a short description.

This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NO sence what so ever[edit]

I followed the link to this page for an explanation of what the definition of the word was and i am afraid i didnt find one just a lot of waffle. This page makes absolutely no sence what so ever. I assume the explanation given in the upper most comment is true and is understandable so i suggest we use that one i am going to change it Delighted eyes (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

First the English word you're looking for is "sense". This does not bode well for your later writing. Second, you should be familiar with WP:NPOV, which you appear to be calling "waffle." And I assume you do not mean Waffle, but some derivation of the verb To Waffle.
To quote "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
So you added an opening paragraph in the form of a statement that Neocolonialism both unquestioningly exists and is a mechanism by which capitalist imperialism continues under other methods. Problem is -- even though I personally agree that this true -- it is not settled amongst most authoritative observers (say political scientists, economists, or even politicians) that Neocolonialism even exists. Rather it is a concept developed by the left and anti-Imperialists to explain certain problems in the behavior of states which do not conform to previous theories about capitalist exploitation. But if you don't believe capitalism is exploitative, you likely don't even believe Neo-Colonialism exists. Thus it is defined here as a theory, not a fact, and the article focuses upon the ways in which this theory has been developed, modified, and mobilized by various writers, politicians, and academics.
So what you charmingly deride as "waffle" is in fact a careful attempt to describe Neocolonialism in a way a vast range of authoritative observers would recognize. Defining it as the unquestioned highest form of capitalism is not such a definition.
So by all means make dramatic POV changes to this article, but all you'll succeed in doing is igniting an edit war with equally dogmatic right-wing editors, which will essentially destroy this article, likely while you're off doing something else. T L Miles (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
To be neutral does not mean to avoid writing anything that could change people's points of view. We should not say "If people believe there was life on Mars, they would believe that there could be war against the Martians, which would make them believe there could be more reasons to build up military equipment, which would make peace seeking ideas less popular. Therefore, the belief of a possibility of life on Mars is politically POV, and does not belong on Wikipedia." Likewise, just because the belief that there's a possibility of neocolonialism in some areas will cause political slants, doesn't meant the information itself is biased. (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Europe[edit]

There probably needs to be a section about Eastern Europe-enough publications exist(including western ones) that argue for Eastern Europe to be considered subject of western neocolonialism after 1989. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of place map?[edit]

This article appears to exclusively consider and talk about Neocolonialism as an issue of the second half of the 20th century, post World War II, so why is it accompanied by a map of World Empires of 1898? This seems out of place and not to match the content of the rest of the article.-- (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism very much needed[edit]

Many claims are outright wrong and backed by fringe sources(those should be deleted). In particular suggestions that foreign investment leads to poverty, blaming free trade and privatization for problems that existed only in the switching phase or were caused by other government actions, hiding the truth that poor countries themselves are mostly responsible for their own poverty, omitting examples like Chile etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC) VERY debatable and biased-POV there - the defenders of Pinochet spins the truth on Chile's economy a LOT. There is statistics that may defend the "neocolonialism" theory as well... much propoganda from the Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not neutral[edit]

As a casual reader I find this article very biased. What is the other side saying about neocolonialism? The section on neocolonialism of South Korea, does it present a widespread consensus or just an example of proponents of neocolonialism? Cristiklein (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neocolonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neocolonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

Postmodern imperialism should be merged into Neocolonialism as it covers the exact same topic but is a lot shorter. Wikiyllek (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

checkY Merged, with most of the content. I would have included a section under "Other approaches" only it doesn't seem like the article or the term really represents a single cohesive philosophy and the people cited don't agree on what (neo-)imperialism constitutes. (In short, a bit WP:Neologism-y.) If someone really wants to write a pro-neo-imperialism section, the relevant lines were:

Some, such as Niall Ferguson, believe postmodern imperialism to be a positive force for international relations.[1] It is based on providing developing nations with order and organization, voluntarism and stability.[2] Proponents of postmodern imperialism seek to negate the widespread belief that imperialism holds negative consequences for the populations of the globe.[3]

ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Niall Ferguson (2008). Empire: How Britain made the Modern World. Penguin (Australia). p. 376.
  2. ^ Robert Cooper (2002). "The Postmodern State". Reordering the World: The Long-term Implications of September 11. London: Foreign Policy Centre.
  3. ^ Robert Cooper (7 April 2002). "The new liberal imperialism". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 November 2014.