No doubt the term (and our analysis) has be be justified, but we are reaching a point where it could not be clearer that imperialism of something like the classic Leninist form is precisely the issue--maybe not the capital export part, but in terms of global competition for control of raw materials.
I have a slightly different take on this. I disagree with the Leninist position, because it posits imperialism as a stage of capitalism, which seems to me too mechanistic. I think imperialism is an aspect of capitalism, one that waxes and wanes just like other capitalist cycles. My question to the Leninists (and especially the Maoists) is this: what would a non-imperialist but capitalist world look like? I don't believe that such a thing is possible. Notwithstanding my years of admiration for Samir Amin et al, I have to say that I think the specifically anti-imperialist project cannot be anything other than a third world (petty bourgeois) nationalist one. It is the ressentiment of the wannabees, not a form of 'national liberation', because it is only the liberation of a particular national bourgeoisie to exploit their own people, but a bourgeoisie that arrogates to itself the right to speak to the world on behalf of the 'nation' as a whole. I would be interested to see a rea! ll! y cogent argument as to how a non-imperialist world order would be possible within the continued domination of capital.
On the other hand, maybe the Leninist anti-imperialist project is simply a ruse to get the national bourgeoisie on one's side only to dispense with them later? This explanation at least has the virtue of explaining why Leninists have long had a taste for slaughtering communists while making deals with some of the most reactionary nationalist elements. In this scenario then there is only a pretense at believing in a capitalist but non-imperialist world order, for 'tactical' and 'strategic' reasons.
Can anyone clarify the anti-imperialist project for me in any way that I may not have thought of?
Tahir