If that's true, then neocolonialism is meaningless as a pejorative. I associate neocolonialism with economic hit men and predatory loans, not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments. By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.
> If that's true, then neocolonialism is meaningless as a pejorative. I associate neocolonialism with economic hit men and predatory loans,
Now that is meaningless. There are a whole vast range of ways to be exploitative and wealthy and powerful taking from poor and powerless.
> not private citizens having the option to leave often abusive governments.
I'm talking about the aggregate outcome for the people. The greater good. It's funny the disconnect some people have here between being so fast to denounce "individualism" greed, selfishness etc., in their own countries when they see it is a detriment to them. And yet they go completely the other way when it's a benefit to them and a detriment to people of other countries. That's the height of selfishness and hypocrisy as I see it.
> By your definition, neocolonialism is simply the absence of serfdom.
yes, it is. Serfdom is when a peasant has no right to leave his lord's land. If neocolonialism includes recognition of the right to emigrate when another country wants to accept you as an immigrant, it's too broad a definition to be any kind of useful pejorative.
The collective outcome may be bad for the country from which people emigrate, but the individual outcome is very good for the people who emigrate. And at a higher level of organisation, the importance of retaining one's best and brightest creates incentives for all governments to behave better than they would if it was accepted the people born in a country belonged to the rulers like some kind of global slavery system.
What I'd like is for you to either narrow your category of 'Neocolonialism' in the future or explain you have a minority view about it. The term as it's used today implies the speaker is arguing against it. If your use of the term neocolonialism applies to people 'voting with their feet', then you are either rehabilitating the term or implicitly arguing for serfdom. Neither of which I think were your intent.
I have explained my view on it. Of course it's a minority view because few are willing to admit they willingly and knowingly benefit on the exploitation of those who have less than they do to begin with, but that's exactly what they do.
Trying to say it's either the industrial harvesting of the most skilled people from less advantaged countries, or it's "serfdom" is just outlandish. I don't even know where to start with that!
