The highest and final form of Capitalism is Imperialism. Marx discussed extensively how Capitalism becomes accumulated, while the Proletariat is left to starve even though they deserve a greater part of the Capital.
In the past, conquests were mostly for Land. This was practical almost all the ages till the 20th century showed up with all its massive radicalized inventions. In the past, according to Immanuel Wallerstein, each empire had its own economy, circulating among its borders, till the International Market was implemented and empires invaded more land to increase their wealth. Land for starters has many important advantages for an expanding/gigantic empire, it is a source of raw material (be that industrial or agricultural), provides human resources, and the final touch, a geographic location to monitor other empires (or acquire a strategic location for further future enlargement of the empire).
To the Liberals, these empires were called “land-fetish”, who were obsessed about power, and power brought dictatorship on the people. Probably the most abused in the medieval era were the people of central and south Africa, who provided free labor under the title of “Slaves”. Latin America also had its share of such imperialism, due to the Spaniards mostly, and Portugal. All the countries were ruled by a dictator under their empires, while the hierarchy of society was forged in a way to suit the ruler of the nation: ie dictatorship, cheap labor, and submission. For example, Ecuador was a source of raw material/labor to a certain empire; however, after its independence, it remained as a source of raw material in return for cheap labor. Empires became adjusting their infrastructures not only for military reasons, rather also for business reasons. The British banned the Dutch ships to land at their docks, which caused the Dutch empire to weaken and henceforth the Brits expanded their own empire, which became known in its most hypocrite sense: “Common Wealth”.
This is the new form of Imperialism. The advocates of the Marxist in School in Academia argued and argued constantly that the 3rd World nations have been late to enter the world of free market, due to previous oppressions. This means they will never catch up to the 3rd world nations, no matter what they try to invest, because in the end, investments are coming from the “Northern” Sphere. They are under heavy debts, or dictatorship rulers who are usually in allegiance to the business elites of the “First World”. The primary fault that these nations are still in a backward position, including the Arab nations, is due to the fact that these nations had for centuries (and some for over a millennium) had their resources taken for free so that the First World adjusted their own infrastructures (whether for military, or business purposes). Debts on the 3rd world should be cancelled by all means since the first world owes the 3rd world for all the historic woes that passed, and for all the robbery occurring by the British Empire, Dutch, French, Spanish, or any other empire in fact.
The current form of imperialism comes in the form of business and open market. In the past, a nation would rebel, and gain its freedom, but then the business elites would return through debts and businesses to rule the nation. Actually, this form of imperialism is stronger than the previous ones, because how can a nation liberate itself from a multi-transnational corporation? Even Chavez’s rebellion is temporary since more than 85% of Venezuela’s GDP relies on the black oil. Hence slavery focal points were replaced with Sweatshops, bad economies would force people to work for cheaper wages. More importantly, the advanced nations (the US in specific) do not need massive armies to invade a country and sustain all those costs into subduing a nation. The market forces all those labor forces to work for almost for free, while they themselves become a market for what they produced (as well as others). The Transnational Corporations, whether through their presidential rulers in the States or through any other institutions (WTO, IMF, WB, others), succeed in placing a dictator to rule the people. The twin cases of Bolivia and Honduras are the perfect example. Honduras had its water privatized, while Bolivia had almost everything privatized. The Bolivar revolution is not as the US argued a dictator seeking power, rather it is the people fed up from being abused.
In the Arab states, we see dictatorship regimes, not representing their people ruling their people. Saddam Hussein was a patch-work created by the US to face Iran. Iran became an Islamic republic due to a US puppy called the Shah. Jordan’s king has been a historical imperial tool who was at first under the Brits, then under the US. Egypt also is a perfect example whereby the United States are doing everything they could to preserve Moubarak’s regime. The imperialists through the ruthless market enslave the people. Lebanon actually is a perfect example of the US using the market to control Lebanon, and how an equally reactionary movement has been carved out (because they are not getting their part of the pie). If a nation resists the free market policy to protect its domestic market, an outside coup can be engineered to take place inside, or economic sanctions can take place. Worse, the Imperialists can toy with the financial markets to ruin a nation’s economy, and spread chaos through out this nation’s land.
So all of this is called "bringing Democracy". Well I would like to quote a scholar by saying: "To accept the seperation of democracy from economics is, minimally, to fail to recognize the contestability of democracy. To treat democracy as if it operated in a vacuum ignores reality. Democracy operates within economic constraints...To allow democratic initiatives to foster ethnic strige and thereby excuse the ineptitude of foreign powers is morally reprehensible... In the words of one astute former candidate, 'it's the economy, stupid.'" (Thomas William Simon, The Injustice of Democracy)
I repeat this for another time: There is No War But Class War specially less than 7% own more than 65% of global wealth (Samir Amin).