Bill Burgess writes: >>Of course, but I don't think Lenin's *basic* notion of an age of imperialism (characterized by imperialist competition rooted in overproduction, and a general division between oppressed and oppressor nations) is so far off, even today.<< My point (developed in a longer message) is that the form of inter-imperialist competition has changed, as has that of the division between oppressed and oppressor nations. Lenin's general framework is okay in an abstract way, I guess, but even he preferred Bukharin's more theoretical analysis. I find Lenin's discussion of overproduction to be a bit confused. However, I do think that the competitive austerity I talked about in the longer missive is encouraging over-production on a global scale. That's very different from Lenin's nation-based overproduction. >> Imperialist war has been known to accompany imperialist economics, and while I find Yugoslavia a harder case to explain than Vietnam, one argument that has helped to make sense of Yugoslavia is how imperialist rivalry helped prolong that conflict ... << I wasn't denying the existence of rivalry among the big 8. But it's not really a matter of military rivalry (which both Lenin and Bukharin emphasize). The US war against Vietnam doesn't quite fit with Lenin's theory since it was part of the US war against a non-capitalist country (the USSR), while Lenin assumes the world is capitalist. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
