Okay, I am asking this purely out of a desire for clarification, please take
it as a simple question, not rhetoric.
>Who includes Russia amongst the imperialist powers between 1945 and
>1989? Is it you? Why?
Wouldn't it be reasonable to consider the USSR's "client states" to be part
of a Soviet empire? What was the debacle in Afghanistan if not an attempt by
the Soviets to maintain their crumbling empire? Wouldn't it be reasonable to
consider the Sino-Soviet alliance not very much different from the
Austro-Hungarian Alliance?
(My questions are predicated upon the commonly accepted definition of
"imperialism", rather than any other esoteric one, so please take that into
account when answering me. I realize I am temporarily omitting the idea
that if it's Marxist it can't be imperialism. )
>Please decide whether you can go along with the Marxist definition of
>imperialism as an integrated FINANCIAL and ECONOMIC system of capitalism
>for looting capital, or not. If it's only to you, an action of
>MILITARY domination by one group over another, then you will have missed
>what distinguishes imperialism from military dominance alone.
>
>Tony
Tony, is it necessary to accept a Marxist definition to engange in the
discussion? Cannot imperialism have Military, Economic, Social,
Geographical,and Political factors combined? I also fail to understand the
subtle difference in terminoloy between "FINANCIAL" and "ECONOMIC".
Bear with me, I really am TRYING to understand these positions.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
