Right SteveH, I’ll have one single attempt (probably misguided) to reason with you.
The term “imperialism” is the single most misused and misunderstood word in the left’s vocabulary. It is generally used to justify support for some very nasty, but anti-Western, capitalist regimes that abuse (or don’t recognise at all) workers’ rights in a far worse way than Western capitalists. China, for instance. Or Iran. Petty bourgeois, Stalinist anti-Americans like the Graun’s Seamas Milne and Simon Tisdall specialise in it. In reality, in their hands, the term amounts to saying “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
The vague and ill-defined term “imperialism” is widely used by third world dictators and anti-working class regimes (eg, at the moment, Iran) to deflect internal dissent. It’s also been used by Stalinists to justify uncritical support for the USSR and Eastern European regimes against working class opposition (eg in Hungary in 1956 and Poland in 1968) and to deflect criticism along the lines of “You ask about workers’ rights in the USSR: what about the blacks in the Southern states of the US?”
In reality, “imperialism” no longer means colonialism or invasion and occupation (eg: the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, whether you supported them or not, were not, and have not been, long-term occupations). It means the domination of finance capital – the “imperialism of free trade.”. There can be no “anti-imperialist” struggle in the modern world that is not a struggle against capitalism. Any other evocation of “anti-imperialism” is bullshit, usually for class-collaborationist purposes: the Stalinist “anti-monopoly alliance” write large, on an international scale.