clip
> I'd also
> take exception to the view of imperialism, which is at odds with the
> actual behavior of cross-border investment; richer countries are the
> major targets, not poorer ones, and among the poorer ones, the main
> investment destinations are a relative handful of middle-income
> countries. I think the model - which is shared by lots of antiglobo
> activists - assigns too much of a share of value production to the
> poorer countries.
>
> Doug
^^^^^^^
CB: This is an old debate you and I have. I think if we look at _Imperialism_, Lenin doesn't put forth the proposition that more capital is exported to the colonies than to other capitalist countries or even other imperialist countries. He points out that there was a shift from the prior era when the export of _goods_ to colonies predominated to the imperialist era pattern of predominance of export of capital to the colonies. This is not meant to make a comparison of between the export of capital to other capitalist or imperialist countries with that of export to colonies. In fact, I think he gives stats. specifically on export of German and English capital to Russia , which is one of your "mid" capitalist and imperialist countries. Anyway, ( I think) it is not one of the theses of _Imperialism_ that capital is not exported between imperialist countries, or that it is exported among them less than to colonies; only that export of capital to colonies predominating over export of goods is a new development at that time.
However, overall, the Leninist question or approach would be to look at the new pattern of cross-border investment, not at all to claim that it was set for all times as it was in 1919. Perhaps the level of investment among imperialist powers has increased . What is the history of that since 1919 ? As I often say, ironically, but expectedly, the existence of the Soviet Union ,and because of it eventually inter-imperialist rivalry turning into inter-imperialist unity, made a fundamental change in the structure of imperialism from the characteristics that Lenin noted. But to analyze these changes and describe the new formation would be a Leninist approach to this development, not to retain the list of all the traits that Lenin compiled in a concrete analysis before the SU and then Cold War existed. Lenin would have changed his analysis as things changed. Some things stayed the same, though or developed in the same direction , such as monopoly.
I might add that, your attention to the specific empirical developments _is_ "Leninist analysis for 2003". So, in a way, the answer to your question, " what is it to be...in 2003" is right under your whatever. But as I say , in a way that is just the sense in which Leninist analysis is Marxist analysis. It's empirical,concrete.
However, I must say that I do worry that in fact your critique of the marginalization of Leninism does equally apply to Marxism. That' s not a big revelation, but a problem that we Marxists must cope with and find solutions to. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread or one that is current, USAmericans are less influenced by Marxism than Europeans, and I would guess South Americans, some Asians in general. The anti-communists have fairly successfully marginalized Marxism here, no ? That's a problem that "Marxists" share with "Leninists" , no ?
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030327/ad1cb11d/attachment.htm>