Is colonialism bad or exploitation?

This is a common proverb that says: "You can tame the external rat, but you can't tame the internal one."
Although the goal of both phenomena of colonization and exploitation is almost the same; which is to dominate the weak by the strong. However, colonization, which means the external enslavement and enslavement of a [weak] nation by the [powerful] nation, is not worse than exploitation, which means the exploitation, imprisonment, and detention of a part of the [weak] nation by another part of the same [powerful] nation within a geography.
Why? Because, according to the history of the sociology of nation-states, colonialism has not and will not last long. Because over time, a slave nation does not accept the influence and leadership of a foreign nation and in the long run, it gradually removes it from the country through protests, rebellions, and revolutions. The example of this is the American Revolution and the independence of most post-nationalist countries [such as Afghanistan].
But exploitation, as we said, from within and exploitation of the part [or the majority of the nation] by the aristocratic and oligarchic group is the same nation that seizes power and, by emphasizing the concentration of power, cuts off the majority from politics. We consider this phenomenon worse than colonialism because in it power is transferred in a hereditary, group, structural, party, and ethnic form.
A tribe captures and enslaves society for many years; in such a way that this slavery conquers the soul of the nation separated from power and takes away the courage of any movement from them. This means that with the death of a khan, the son of the khan takes its power (the exploiter); and with the death of a peasant, the son of the peasant carries on its business (the exploited).
A clear example of this is the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeois class (in the past) or dictatorial and theocratic governments (in the present).