RE: [Marxism] It's those damn petty-bourgeois at it again!

["Callum McCormick" <kingcal78@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"In fact, without these bases and military support, Cuba would have been in
an even more precarious situation than it was in. Perhaps you should use a
different word than imperialism if you lack the economic background to lend
it scientific precision. "

Fine, I don't pretend to be an economist. If we take Lenin's 'scientific'
definition, Imperialism may not be the right word. However, the USSR did
exert strict political and military control over the Eastern states. And
also, when it took over after the war, Czech and East German industrial
output was much greater than that of SU. Therefore, we had the strange
situation of an 'Imperialist' state less technologically developed than its
'colonies'. The USSR would export its raw materials below market price and
pay high market price for its imports. You're saying this proves the
relationship here is 'not exploitative'. But, when these 'economics' come
with military, ideological and political control of the harshest and most
brutal type, that 'fact' becomes almost meaningless.

I don't know another term for military, ideological and political control of
one nation by another - so I use 'imperialism'. But I suppose you're right,
I'll remember to mention the USSR's trade deficit the next time I do so.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism