Is Globalization the New Improved Imperialism?

John Hobson wrote a book in 1902 titled Imperialism. Lenin wrote a response to Hobson, who he viewed as a bit naive (since Hobson made what might today be described as a liberal argument for solving the "problem" of imperialism --- wage led domestic economic growth, rather than the imperialist policy of conquering other people in order to force feed them your surplus goods). Lenin also used the word imperialism and he talked about many of the same factors that people talk about today under the heading "globalization." So what's new? Perhaps one thing that is new is that the current dynamic seems to be favoring China and India, two relatively strong nation states (both also are nuclear powers) that are unlikely to fall under the control of "Western" imperialist interests. Quite the contrary, particularly in the case of China. Chinese transnationals are becoming increasingly important. The Chinese government is accumulating extraordinary hard currency reserves and has become one of the U.S. government's most important lenders. No, this time around it does not appear that the title "imperialism" captures the dynamic process underway, although it certainly has parallels and it is a shame to completely abandon the word. In any event, food for thought.