The linked article says, "I hew toward the Leninist perspective in which the imperialism can be applied to states that are below the USA on the totem pole such as Czarist Russia and Japan—two countries that went to war over control over strategic resources in a manner anticipating 1914."
Setting aside the confusing last two words, the notion that Czarist Russia was imperialist does not square with the key Leninist point that what drives modern imperialism is monopoly capital. To be sure, Russia was a "Great Power." But to call Russia imperialist reverts to the pre-Marxist view that speaks of ancient Roman imperialism, 18th century British imperialism, etc. The dispute is not simply about how to use a word; it is about explaining world relations, especially wars, from the actual economic roots. As the latter change, so too does the impetus and form of imperialism taken in the everyday sense. Incidentally, the article reproduces a headline from the Independent newspaper in Britain as proof that Russia is as bad as the U.S. about what it bombs: "Syria conflict: Russian air strikes 'hit three medical facilities' " However, if you read this and other news articles on the incidents in question, you find that the claims by an NGO spokesman are much less than that. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
