History shows that, more often than not, loss of sovereignty leads to liberalisation imposed in the interests of the powerful.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Nations sometimes flourish by denying the crimes that brought them into being. Only when the original invasion, occupation, extermination or usurpation has been safely thrust into the political unconscious can sovereignty feel secure.
The most disastrous phenomenon of the current situation is the factor that imperialism is employing for its own ends all the powers of the proletariat, all of its institutions and weapons, which its fighting vanguard has created for its war of liberation.
Relinquishing apparent national sovereignty does not have to entail a loss of national sovereignty, but can actually be a benefit.
It is wrong to try to avoid the struggle against imperialism under the pretext that independence and revolution are important, but that peace is still more precious.
The Western world loves liberalisation, provided it doesn't affect them.
In the age of globalisation, pooled sovereignty means more power, not less.
A State in the grip of neo-colonialism is not master of its own destiny. It is this factor which makes neo-colonialism such a serious threat to world peace.
It is not an accident that developing countries - virtually the whole of East Asia, for example - view the role of the state in a far more interventionist way than does the Anglo-Saxon world. Laissez-faire and free markets are the favoured means of the powerful and privileged.
The desire for liberty has also made itself felt as struggle against domestic tyranny or arbitrary rule.
Imperialist enterprise draws political consequences.
No opposing quotes found.