Jim Devine:
>no it isn't. The point is that you _define_ imperialism as being inherently
>capitalist, so that "non-capitalist imperialism" is an oxymoron _by
>definition_. But definitions are arbitrary to a large extent. They don't
>drop from the sky and they're not innate in the mind. Instead, people
>create them. That means we can't say: "look at the way I use my
>definitions. I must be right!"
Well, I am right.
>Of course not. What I've read indicates is that when Lenin _et al_ refer to
>capitalist imperialism in the early 20th century, they are in effect
>trashing capitalism by likening it to Roman and other imperialisms. They
>didn't see capitalist imperialism as the same as Roman imperialism, but
>instead were saying: despite the liberal pretensions of capitalism
>producing peace and prosperity, yadda yadda, it's producing war and/or
>depression, while going international to exploit other countries.
This is progress. At least we now agree that 3rd century Rome and 19th
century Great Britain had dissimilar social and economic systems. If we can
only get that USSR thing straightened out...
>I'm glad you admit that. Are you implying that it wasn't really an aspect
>of a kind of imperialism? if you want to avoid further discussion of
>Soviet-style imperialism, a simple "yes" or "no" will do.
yes.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
