In response to my comment that maybe the term "globalization" should be replaced by "immiseration," Shawgi writes: >Terms which may more accurately reflect objective developments than those expressed by "globalization" and "immiseration" are "imperialism" and "anti-social offensive."< The latter is fine, but "imperialism" doesn't say anything about how matters have changed from the kind of imperialism that Lenin, Bukharin, Luxemburg, et al. wrote about, to the kind of imperialism seen between the 2 World Wars, to the kind of imperialism seen between 1945 and 1980 or so, to the kind of imperialism seen since 1980 or so. Things have changed, while the term "imperialism" doesn't automatically imply such changes. Put in another way, I agree with the Lenin/Bukharin view that imperialism is a social system or relation (rather than a political policy) and is the international expression of capitalism. But Lenin and Bukharin's description of the imperialism of their day isn't very descriptive of the imperialism of our day. (see my posts of last month on this subject.) To open a can of worms, just as we can speak of ancient-Roman non-capitalist imperialism, I think it's reasonable to also talk about the old USSR's imperialism or the People's Republic of China's imperialism, though these imperialisms are different from capitalist imperialism in many ways. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [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.
