A:
Imperialism is the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, in which monopolies and cartels become the prevalent economic force of society.[1]
Lenin is often credited for having synthesized a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publishing of his pamphlet Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, most notably on the foundation of the earlier work of John A. Hobson entitled Imperialism: A Study. Beginning with the first paragraph of his pamphlet, Vladimir Lenin wrote that rapid growth of industry and concentration of production in growing enterprises represent the key characteristic of capitalism.[1]
Multiple theorists have updated, deepened, developed or critically engaged with the classical analysis of Imperialism. Other theorists developed different conceptualisations, including most notably Kwame Nkrumah, remaining situated within the framework of scientific socialism. Most recently, the concept of neoimperialism has emerged in the work of Cheng Enfu.
The development of imperialism in the global economy also reinforces a dialectical relationship between core-periphery countries, mainly dependency and subordination of underdeveloped countries to imperialist economies. In conjunction with these developments, new theoretical models were proposed to understand developments, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory.
B:
Imperialism represents the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, where monopolies and cartels dominate the economic landscape of society.
Lenin is widely recognized for synthesizing a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publication of his 1916 pamphlet, “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.” This work builds on John A. Hobson’s earlier study, “Imperialism: A Study.” Lenin begins his pamphlet by asserting that the rapid growth of industry and the concentration of production in expanding enterprises are key characteristics of capitalism.
Numerous theorists have subsequently updated, expanded, and critically engaged with the classical analysis of imperialism. Notably, Kwame Nkrumah contributed significantly within the framework of scientific socialism. More recently, Cheng Enfu has introduced the concept of neoimperialism.
The evolution of imperialism in the global economy reinforces a dialectical relationship between core and periphery countries, highlighting the dependency and subordination of underdeveloped nations to imperialist economies. This dynamic has led to the development of new theoretical models, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory, to better understand these global economic relationships.
For the purpose of this question you can only choose between A or B. Please explain your reasoning.
I think B generally reads better. “Relationship between core and periphery countries” reads a lot better than “relationship between core-periphery countries.” The latter makes it sound like there is such a thing as a core-periphery. You could say something like “core-periphery relationships between polities”. Countries is a less than useful word these days I think, where supernational entities like the EU or NATO dominate, and you have a number of non-state groups that are being exploited and/or supressed.
I’d personally also avoid figurative language like economic landscape. I’d say something like “cartels and monopolies are the dominant economic agents” (or actors). This also helps underscore their active nature, as opposed to economic forces like demand, surplus labour, or inflation.
Same, B seems better to me.
I would change “the highest stage” to a “a higher stage”.
While Lenin did frame it as “the highest”, it implies that Imperialism is the end of capitalism, which doesn’t feel entirely correct.
As far as I can tell, they are the same in substance. The language of B seems more accessible to me so I would go with that.
Seconded on B for the same reason. The more accessible the language can be while still clearly communicating the concept, the better.
I also agree with the other comments so far, but I think they can be pretty easily addressed later in the entry or with minor edits.
I don’t jive with the verb in “imperialism represents”. Imperialism is a thing, it might also be a sign, but I don’t think it’s primary reality is as a sign, but rather as a dynamic (a.k.a. complex of behaviors exhibited by a system).
