> Lenin's view has however been mistaken, in the sense that imperialism has
> been understood mostly as a political stand by the more powerful states.
> In this sense one cannot say that the whole world is imperialist or that
> all countries are imperialist, but at the same time saying this does not
> deny that the whole world economy is imperialist.
Hi Claus:
Well, Lenin referred to the 'epoch' of imperialism. Whether the characteristics
which he referred to are still the major characteristics of the current
'epoch' is a worthwhile topic for discussion. It might be interesting in this
regard to consider the book which John Milios (co-) wrote about this.
I agree that there are many who misunderstand Lenin's theory as a 'political
stand by the more powerful states'. *YET*, Lenin himself, along with the
Bolsheviks at the time, referred to imperialist *nations* and the rivalry
among imperialist nations which led to imperialist wars. This clearly
meant that there were nations which were imperialist and others which were not.
Also, his perspective calling for the self-determination of *oppressed
nationalities* was linked to his theory and understanding of imperialism:
thus, there were oppressed nations and oppressor nations (the latter being
denied the right of self-determination since that would cede to them the
right to oppress other nations).
Now, if Paula or others had said that there is international imperialism
but that imperialism no longer manifests itself through imperialist *nations*,
then that's a perspective which (while I don't agree with) is more
plausible then the perspective that *all* independent nation-states
are imperialist - for a number of reasons I have already stated.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Mar 25 16:53:05 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT