Ulhas Joglekar wrote: >I am not sure Marxists have a coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism. >Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today? > >
There are theories of imperialism, not a coherent theory if by coherent you mean unitary. The same is true of the national question, etc. In fact, there were no "coherent" theories in Lenin's time either. There were debates within Marxism with not only Luxemburg versus Lenin, but Lenin versus Bukharin, etc. Lenin did not have so much as a theory that was intended for the ages, but an *analysis* that attempted to explain why WWI was breaking out. Thus, his attention was focused on rivalries between advanced capitalist nations. Monopolies, trusts, financial capital were key categories for him. In more recent times, the emphasis has been on divisions between advanced capitalist countries and so-called dependent countries. Some Marxists like the late Bill Warren, and Spinoza-Marxists like Hardt-Negri, believe that the advance of capitalism in the 3rd world will lead to a kind of levelling of the playing field. Warren at least tried to deploy economic data to support his theory; Hardt-Negri offer a kind of gossamer rhetoric that amounts to Thomas Friedman mixed with postmodernism. -- Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
