52 SOCIAL SCIENTIST such as India, it did not go through this 'integrated, total5 process. In fact, generalized commodity production was imposed on India from outside by imperialism, and did not develop into a genuine or full-fledged capitalism. While Lenin's definition of capitalism was "perfectly adequate" for Europe "in the context of an integrated process of capitalist development,'^ a new definition of capitalism, derived from Marx^s 'method,' is needed for India which "never saw an integrated development of capitalist production relations and generalized commodity production, out of the internal contradictions of its precapitalist mode.952 What is required is a theory of the 'colonial modes of production.' To study the unique and singular features of the colonial mode of production in India, one must go back to the 'method' of Marx (as opposed to the 'model^) as Lenin, not to speak of Stalin, failed to do. (c) Advanced capitalist development and the colonial and dependent world of 'underdevelopment' are two repellent poles^ two different animals, metropolis and satellite, opposite sides of the same coin. They are in a contrary and exact inverse relationship with each other and constitute a 'zero-sum' game. Imperialism might have industrialized Russia and the white colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but it merely generated 'underdevelopment' in the non-white colonies and dependent countries. Its historical role, which Lenin could not really grasp, was only to retard the development of capitalism in the 'underdeveloped' world. Utsa Patnaik understands the impact of British colonialism, both in the pre-imperialist and imperialist phases, as the negation of capitalism in India. Setting up her own definition of capitalism, she seeks and fails to find evidence of dynamic, independent ('integrated, total') development. She particularly fails to discover the 'logic of unfettered accumulation' 8 in India. From this, as Paresh Ghattopadhyay points out, A Utsa Patnaik derives the conclusion that colonialism did not allow the development of capitalism in India. Utsa Patnaik's statements5 make clear this conclusion beyond any possible doubt. Utsa Patnaik is entitled to her 'creative Marxism', but where this stands in relation to the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method must be noted. To start with, her thesis challenges the correctness and profound meaning of the Leninist thesis that imperialism, which is parasitical or moribund capitalism, accelerates as well as retards the development of capitalism in backward countries. It must be noted that Utsa Patnaik's thesis also repudiates the Leninist understanding of the historic significance of the era of imperialism to the colonies: There was formerly an economic difference between the colonies and the European peoples,at least for the majority of the latter, the colonies having been drawn into commodity exchange and not into capitalist production. Imperialism changed this. Imperialism is, among other things, the export of capital. Capitalist production is being transplanted to the colonies at an ever-increasing rate.®