It's "remotely comparable" because it has been argued that the Soviet economy only worked as well as it did due to slave labor, i.e. that the gulag existed prim

It's "remotely comparable" because it has been argued that the Soviet economy only worked as well as it did due to slave labor, i.e. that the gulag existed primarily for "slave/forced labour for economic gain". And people make similar arguments about the colonial powers. > The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to extract value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies to the mainland. That's your opinion; I don't think it's true. I think the point of colonialism is an attempt to guarantee the nation state's survival. Churchill: > We shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. I don't pretend to know whether or not colonies were a net-benefit economically. But, either way, I don't think economic arguments provided the fundamental justification for colonialism. I think the colony exists for the same reason the family, the polis, the nation state, and the empire exist, which is a desire for immortality or, if you prefer, an attempt to prevent the achievements of men from being obliterated by time.