Lenin's analysis of monopoly is directly based on Marx's , only contrary to treating it like dogma ( that dogmatic and false refrain of liberal commentators on Lenin) , Lenin develops it to the changes in conditions that had come about since Marx's era, the complete opposite of what you say below. The whole project of _Imperialism_ was to compensate for the fact that Marx's ideas could not be applied in some "frozen" way to the new conditions of world captialism. There would have been no reason to write the book if he was going to apply frozen ideas to the present. Lenin's writing in _Imperialism_ and otherwise does not at all "freeze" Marx's ideas, but quite clearly creatively develops them. The whole book is an effort to modify Marx's ideas, but remain true to them. In fact, I am pretty sure that at the time it was written, the "establishment" Marxists criticized it for breaking with orthodox Marxism, precisely unfreezing it. Perhaps most directly , none of the main elements of imperialism that Lenin defines are in Marx as they are in _Imperialism_ . They are all modifications of Marx's discussions. To call it freezing Marx's ideas is a total misrepresentation. Where in Marx does he discuss a shift from a predominance of export of goods to an export of capital to the colonies ? Where in Marx's writings is the concept of state-monopoly ? etc., etc. It is patently false that Lenin is freezing Marx's ideas in this book. He is exactly giving to them new life and motion. Lenin knew as much you about treating Marxism as a guide to action not a dogma. This is the opposition that Marx himself placed to dogma: action ,not ceaseless motion of thought. Your focus on the socalled ceaseless motion of Marx's thought as opposed to its dynamism in its relation to action is the type of thing Marx criticized in his Theses on Feuerbach. Marx didn't want people to use his thought as ceaseless motion in itself but as a guide to motion in being , the world, action, practice. Ceaseless motion of thought is interpretation , but the thing is to change the world, which Lenin did. Charles Brown >>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/18/99 12:09PM >>> Charles Brown wrote: >Besides that , Vol. III of _Capital_ is older than _Imperialism_ >,but somehow you seem to think it has some contemporary validity. You're absolutely right. There's a lot in K vol 3 that's very enlightening on credit and the joint-stock company, to take two relevant examples. In fact, there's something on almost every page of Marx I've ever read that's enlightening and even inspiring. I think one reason for that is that his thought is in ceaseless motion, while later Marxists tended to freeze certain moments of Marx into dogma. Doug
