If Charles Gould gave the classic defense of imperialistic progress in Part One , and was right, Decoud here eloquently states the opposing view -- and he too is right, as the history of the 20th Century bears witness.
Why does Decoud hesitate, changing the word "robbed" to "exploited?"
"Robbed" implies agreement with the principle of property ownership,
so perhaps he is revealing a socialist viewpoint here. But from Decoud, the
universal skeptic, I think the meaning goes deeper than that. "Robbed"
also implies the existence of objective value in the world, of wealth that can
be stolen. Decoud, and Nostromo's skeptical viewpoint, argue the opposite,
that value exists only as assigned to objects by man. "Robbery" is
therefore not possible, but "exploitation" -- meaning the forced labor
and social dislocation of a people, for the sake of others' definitions
of value, others' dream-ideals -- is inevitable; it is "our fate."