In my reading on imperialism few, not several decades ago, there were three main texts provided: Bukharin, Luxembourg and Lenin. The point of departure of Lenin from the rest was in fact that military aggression i.e. the fifth analytical facet of imperialism was central to how the practice of imperialism in modern history unfolded and this was central to accumulation by dislocation. Realisation per se as Luxembourg emphasized would still put her on the side of under-consumptionist where a Keynesian dentistry exercise of demand management can dodge crisis forever. For Lenin however, this was a secondary issue under imperialism. The crux of the matter was that militarism held primacy in the reproduction of capital. This is quite a departure from the rest. The very points on the expansive military presence of the US that has been on the rise is evidence for Lenin’s point; and if one were to take the division of labour within world capital, true that the US has become a liability to the rest and the outflows (net) from the developing to the developed world were last year at 200 million dollars, however, that is because the breaking down of capital flow barriers has allowed for stronger cross border relations with the bourgeoisie everywhere and so on. The context has changed since the days of ardent nationalism, and even then there backflows for the outflows. So I guess Lenin knew that in some respects he will be outdated but not in the central theme under monopoly capitalism, in which accumulation by forcible dispossession dominates. Wars are “primitive accumulation”, however now it has little developmental role. But good piece from loren as usual.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
