From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: highest form of capitalism
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:53:09 +0800


Thomas I don't really disagree with on this below: 

Lenin's short pamplet in some senses distilled what had previously existed, imperialism was not his invention. But in terms of history and in terms of dominance and the vast bulk of all discussion since then Lenin is the begining point - that is all I meant.

I suppose it boils down to how you understand the word "authorative".

Greg
--- Message Received ---
From: Thomas Seay <entheogens-AT-yahoo.com>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: AUT: highest form of capitalism


--- Greg Schofield <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
wrote:
<<Lenin is the authoritive text on imperialism, you
can't talk about with 
out reference to it >>

Actually, I would disagree with this.  The circa WW1
authoritative texts on the subject are (1)
Hilferding's "Finance Capital (2) Hobson's
"Imperialism - A Study"
and (3) Bukharin's "Imperialism and World Economy". 
Lenin's work was only a pamphlet and drew heavily from
the works of all three of these.  That is not to
belittle Lenin's work, only to put it in proper
perspective.

If you mean that Lenin's is presently the best known
and most widely read of that period then that is
certainly true.

Thomas

===="The tradition of all the dead generations
 weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living"

-Karl Marx



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---