From: blunose-AT-interserv.com
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:12:59 -0800
Subject: M-I: Terminology: Imperialism vs. Globalization


Last week I attended a talk by Paul Idahosa
about Zaire & Rwanda. This was a very informative
and thoughtful lecture. I could not do it
justice through a filter of my crude 
understanding and awkward explanation. 

But he did raise an interesting sidebar 
that I would like to share. He explained 
early in his talk that he prefers to use 
the term "imperialism" over "globalization", 
especially when discussing Africa. In fact,
he said that he'd like to see Marxists
reclaim and use "imperialism" instead of
neo-liberal/classical economics lingo.[I'm
paraphrasing big-time]

He prefers this term for a couple of reasons
(well, one is the corollary of the other):

a) Imperialism implies the notion of nations
competing, of purposeful actors seeking to
gain control (of a region or sector). These
actors include the "imperialists" and the
local agents of imperialism. He claims the term
"globalization" does not capture this sense
of deliberate action/policy.

b) By using "globalization" (and avoiding
the term "imperialism) Marxists are 
buying into the hegemony of the market.
"Globalization" implies a detached, natural 
and inevitable process of the market.


This observation and choice of terms shed 
light for me on the kind of debate Sivanandan 
& Wood presented in Feb/97 _Monthly Review_, 
in which Ellen Wood points out the insidious 
defeatism of the left's concept of "globalization".

Anyhow, just one thought gleaned from a very 
helpful presentation about history, class &
imperialism. [And apologies if I've misrepresented
the discussion of a week ago!]


Gay Harley
Toronto, Canada
PS - I'm away from my computer 'til Sunday.


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---