True Left

We are opposed to metal-backed money. A national currency backed by gold will have its value subject to alteration by the quantity of gold available in other countries, thus is not independent. The only way for a national currency to be independent is for it to be backed by national labour.

Alright, I change the conclusion, this is the renewed conclusion :

We need to use another economic system, which makes people's lives better and freer from unnecessary debts from the "modern" Western economic system, for example, an economic system where money is printed or made according to the amount of labour a government or state has, so, the amount of money which spread by the government to people fit with how many people deserve to get money from their work for the state, from that system, there is no condition where the state lack of money to give to the people, or have excess of money, which make the reserve of the money can misused by the state leader, government officials, or a group of ruling people who control the money, and the value of a country's currency will survive changes in currency values that occur in the world. Not a financial system where a group of people can manage a state-owned bank, so that every money is printed , then the government and the people owe it to those who manage the bank.

This would imply that no rebels in history were ever misled. Are you sure about this?? I suggest you come up with a better argument about why Western colonialism is bad that does not depend on whether or not rebellion occurred. (In many Western colonies there were no rebellions; that does not imply colonialism was good in those places.)

This is my renewed comments :

If Western colonialism is beneficial for the colonized people, then in the historical recording of colonialism there will not be an event of rebellion carried out by those who colonized, if we look at the history of Western colonialism over the last 500 years, there are many wars of rebellion, the natives experienced slavery committed by the colonizers, they are made as forced laborers who are treated badly until they are exhausted, there are even those who die because of it, and most importantly and need to know, in almost every colonized territory, the people from the colonial country, especially the European "white" people who lived there treated the colonized people with different or discriminating treatment, Europeans get better treatment, for example, if in a colony there is a place where there is good land for plantations and shelter, then the colonizers considered the land their own, even though the land was already owned by the colonized people, and they could take the land by force if the colonized people refused to give it to them, and if the colonizers succeeded in seizing that good land, the colonized people were expelled and they were forced to live in a place that was not suitable for habitation and made a place to live, so that many of them live uncomfortable and in torment, such colonial atittude like that cannot be forgotten and forgiven

Missing "" around "white".

And the notion that people in the "South" were experiencing backwardness and economic poverty was also not entirely true, before the Europeans colonized, they could live in good economic circumstances, their basic needs such as food and housing needs had been obtained, and when they were colonized by "white" people from Western European countries, their basic needs were much taken by force by those who colonized by force , most through wars between colonial forces and colonized natives, so that they lived in poverty, here is a further explanation that explains that Western colonialism was more bad