The despot behaviour could see it as imperialist because one private others to be free concentrating all the powers as the emperor in the empire to domain over individuals. The principle of non-intervention and the right of sovereignty could be violated belong liberals in benefit of the liberty of the individuals in uncivilized nations. We could argue, this principle has all the imperialist attributes such as, when they intervene they use the force to have the whole state control, "which constitutes the fundamental nature of imperialism" (Bannet Jahn.). As it happened in 1885, with "The Berlin Conference" that was the creation of colonies, which benefited the economies of developed countries and no the liberty of African people, as they proposed. Liberal states arrived to Africa and dominated the whole country: changing the map with new borders, taking control of the economic relations among others. They became the owners of Africa, looking for grow of their markets. We could not consider this behaviour as liberation from oppression or the way to civilize these towns, it is the opposite, could be seen as an oppressor conduct of domination as the Holy Roman Empire did to conquer France or Britain. In this case, Europe states were the huge controller of uncivilized African towns, as Mill wrote "semi-barbarous dependency by a civilized country", considered as imperialist by William L. Langer. The colonialism to Marx was the effect of the capitalism.