James Devine wrote: > > 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. I don't see the distinction your are making re *nation-based* overproduction. I would argue the competitive austerity you described is imposed by capital as their 'solution' to growing overproduction. Is there a better way of understanding its root cause? > > 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. > Lenin's characterization was of an epoch of (inter-related) imperialism, war and revolution, and so Vietnam fits fine. I don't think it is right to say the US war against Vietnam was aimed at the USSR. It was a war against national liberation, including the right to choose another social system. *If* the "main contradiction" was between capitalism and socialism I would agree Lenin's approach needs transplant surgury. In his reply to Shawgi Tell, Jim Devine suggests that imperialist economic competition is "fading", and that MNCs are de-nationalizing. But aren't the 'free' trade agreements we've been discussing a form of *intensified* competition, and which we all know are crammed with protectionist measures and could easily be erased tomorrow in favour of more explicit protectionism? Many argue any serious de-nationalization of firms is another 'globalization' myth, as state power (ultimately backed by military power) remains essential to protect both their general *and particular* world corporate interests. I still have yet to see convincing evidence for any notion of general de-nationalization of capital. Jim Devine also tied Lenin's notion of finance capital to German-style banking, and downplayed the likelyhood of military conflict between the US and Russia. I have never understood why the difference between German and British banking matters much for his approach to imperialism. Can someone explain this? On Russia: Sure, the collapse of the USSR has left the US virtually unchallenged militarily, but considering that the US just re-invented NATO as a noose around Russia's throat by admitting a handpicked three neighbours (and refusing others) I don't think it is right to downplay the ongoing danger of war. Bill Burgess
