Re: or sub-imperialism? Re: [marxmail] Essay on Russian Imperialism and Its Monopolies

hari kumar

1) I think that was the logical question that flows out.
I was thinking how this fitted with the different emphases between myself and  Gil Schaeffer. FWIW I would answer 'no'.

2) Thus: In an effort to answer that question from my viewpoint, and simply yo try and understand it - I put up some draft theses on this point - entitled: " Theses at a time of an obvious attempted re-division of world ‘spheres of interest’ – What support should Marxists give to Russia?" at:
I also thank Michael Pröbsting. There are two other quick sources I turned to, on this matter of Russian 'imperialism' now. 

One is by Tony Norfield, who makes a similar point to that of Walter - bulk of 'power' (as a quantifiable 'tool' that appears to 'fit' or encompass Lenin's breakdown-definition of imperialism). 
For me that set of draft theses are hardly more than a stool to allow discussion and that is all.

3) Patrick: Thanks, I had asked you previously for a couple of times for details, and you must have been too busy. But your last notes from yesterday, were along the lines of what I had hoped for.
When I looked at the 'more detail' for figure 4.3 (? the one provided in your blog note from yesterday) - in your chapter at the link you provided, I still had some difficulty in really understanding Figure 4.3.
But i note you have more details in this current batch of mails from MM - so may ask you further - after digesting those.        To some extent Patrick, even in your chapter sent yesterday, you point out out that there are some "semantic" issues to this all. I recall asking you: 'what difference the new terminology has from the older terminology of 'junior partners in imperialism'?
As I read Adrian Sotelo Valencia's explanation of where it was that Ruy Mauro Marini's thought sprang from - it seemed to be to provide an explanation for distinctions between i. comprador borge; ii. national borge; and iii. national borge who recant-are pushed into submission by imperialism.  You also implied in the chapter sent yesterday in the book-link (I made notes but the computer swallowed page numbers etc) that it made no practical difference in terms of the mandate for progressives-Marxist to actually *fight* imperialism in their respective countries. 

4) In meantime - how valid do either of you - Walter or Patrick B (or anyone else obviously) - think Tony Norfield's analytical tool as displayed in his graphs that I cite-reprint in
actually are? 

Thanks for considering.
Hari Kumar

Join to automatically receive all group messages.