[ show plain text ]
Without a theory of imperialism, what would be the basis for the
>understanding that we have long been in an "epoch of wars and revolutions
You don't need to have a theory of imperialism to understand this, merely
to study the continuous series of wars and revolution there have been in
the world since the beginning of the century. I can hardly think of a year
in the 20th century when there has not been a revolt, a revolution or a war
going on somewhere in the world.
Also: can a period that some claim has been going on for close to
>a century be said to be an "epoch"?
The notion of an "epoch" is relative. An epoch is punctuated at either end
by qualitative changes (historical turning points) and characterised by
continuities in between which define the epoch. We can periodise the
history of capitalism in various different ways, using various different
criteria. What is certain is that the world-historical perspective of the
Communist International about the "decline of capitalism" was incorrect. It
applied only up to the late 1940s. The Leninist perspective on imperialism,
apart from containing factual errors, must therefore be revised, to bring
it into line with the real world and the historical facts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:07 EST