Re: Imperialism in decline?

[Nancybrumback]

On 04 July 2002, Louis Proyect wrote:

>>One of the curiosities of the academic left is the tendency of various figures to agree with each other on broad questions without sharing a common ideological framework. For example, neo-Althusserian Stephen Resnick has the same exact "state capitalist" analysis of the USSR as people like Alex Callinicos. Turning to Immanuel Wallerstein, a kingpin in the world-systems world, we discover agreement with Hardt-Negri on two fundamental questions: one, that socialism on a state level is to be avoided at all costs; two, that US imperialism has been in a process of decline--a point made in the article below that is dubious at best. US imperialism may be more dangerous than ever, but the fall of the USSR has given it unlimited power. Since Wallerstein (and Resnick and Hardt-Negri) lacks a dialectical approach to the USSR, no wonder this point would be lost on him.>>

Thanks to Louis for furnishing the reference from Wallerstein. Since I have not intensively studied his work or the work of Callinicos, I don't really know what the differences are. But I am most interested in understanding why the lack of a dialectical approach would prevent one from understanding the USSR in a certain way.

I guess my question is, "What *is* a dialectical approach? Why is a dialectical approach better (more revealing of the truth) than a non-dialectical approach?)

(I am still digesting what folks have said about the LoV, trying to figure out my next question.)


nancy brumback
professor of integrated ecological studies
new college of california
766 valencia st.
san francisco, CA 94110
415-437-3405
[EMAIL PROTECTED]