Imperialism

To begin with the basics, let us see how Lenin defined imperialism.

“If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism)

Monopoly refers, most obviously, to the giant corporations arising out of concentration of production — corporations which have become much more powerful today than in Lenin’s time, not only in the economic arena but also in the realms of politics and culture. In addition, Lenin referred to monopolistic control over sources of major raw materials like coal and petroleum; monopolies in banking and finance (the finance oligarchy); in possession of colonies, semi/neo-colonies or spheres of influence, etc.

However, in all these areas, monopolies do not mean the end of competition. Monopoly grows out of, and further accentuates, competition. Marx had already pointed out this “unity” cum “synthesis” cum “movement” between the two opposites; Lenin corroborated this in the light of new experience.

He showed, for example, why wars are inevitable under imperialism. Development of capitalism was (and remains) very uneven, so some of the capitalist great powers (like Germany) experienced more rapid development than others (Great Britain, for example) and naturally, aspired after bigger shares in the world’s resources, markets, territories. But since the “territorial division of the world was already completed” (in the form of monopolisation of colonies, spheres of influence etc.), re-division was only possible by means of war. Thus wars between big powers — or among groups of them — originate from a basic compulsion of capitalism at its monopoly stage, not from ill motives of bad statesmen.

But in addition to monopoly, Lenin noted two other characteristic features of imperialism: it is parasitic or decaying capitalism; and moribund capitalism. Let us see what Lenin actually meant by these two terms.

“Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small and weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations — all these have given rise to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism. … It would be a mistake to believe that this tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of bourgeoisie, and certain countries betray … now one and now another of these tendencies. On the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before” (Imperialism)

Spectacular but extremely uneven, lopsided growth and pronounced decay thus constitute a unity of opposites — where, in the ultimate analysis, decay is the principal aspect of the contradiction. This contradiction manifests itself at all levels: inter-sectoral (high-speed growth in the “New Economy” vis-a-vis crisis in the “smokestack” industries), inter-national (say Uganda compared to the USA) and inter-class (everywhere a small minority growing fatter and the vast majority sliding further down in relative or absolute poverty) and so on.

How do we interpret the term “moribund capitalism”? In Imperialism, Lenin says it is “capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already dying capitalism, the beginning of its transition to socialism. The tremendous socialization of labour by imperialism (what its apologists — the bourgeois economists — call “interlocking”) produces the same result.”

What Lenin means to say here is that before the rise of joint-stock companies and monopolies, capitalism was based on scattered, unplanned production carried on by a growing number of small and medium enterprises owned by individuals or partnership firms. Socialisation of production (production jointly carried on by many workers together) was at a higher stage compared to the feudal manufactory system, but not very high. The 20th century saw a leap in concentration of production (beyond factory walls and national boundaries, with components of a single product — say a car — being produced in many factories and then put together), marketing, management (one holding company controlling tens of — sometimes more than a hundred — subsidiaries, often in foreign lands) etc. This signified a tremendous rise in the degree of socialization of production and labour, but the fruits of that labour, i.e., the surplus value or profit, continued to be appropriated privately, and that too by fewer (monopolistic) concerns. Society’s productive base widened, but appropriation became narrower.

This is how the mismatch between socialised production and private appropriation — the fundamental contradiction of capitalism — gets accentuated to an unprecedented level and cry out for an urgent solution. And there is but one solution: to socialise appropriation (distribution), so as to bring it into correspondence with already socialised production. This means sharing the fruits of collective labour collectively and equally, which is possible only by transferring the ownership of land, factories, and other means of production to the whole people. And that is socialism. In this sense, “imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat” — declared Lenin.

Does this imply that capitalism’s transition to socialism is an automatic process? By no means. The subjective role of the proletariat and its party is as crucial as the objective maturing of the fundamental contradiction mentioned earlier. And it is here that we stumble upon a big problem. International monopoly concerns earn not only ‘normal’ profits at home, but also ‘super profits’ from abroad by means of export of capital. So huge is the quantum of these total profits that they can afford to spare a small part of that for bribing labour leaders and the upper stratum of organized workers so as to keep them away from revolutionary politics. Thus emerges “the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook … they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, the real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism.” (Imperialism, Preface to the French and German editions)
So on one hand monopoly finance capital objectively brings socialism nearer and on the other creates a major subjective hurdle. Acutely aware of this paradox, Lenin observed towards the close of Imperialism :

“… private economic and private property relations constitute a shell [here “shell” refers to the bourgeois relations of production, within and against which the rapid socialisation of production — “the content” — is growing. — A.S.] which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period (if, at the worst, the cure of the opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed.”

In spite of the accursed ‘Aesopian language’ which Lenin was forced to use in order to get the pamphlet published legally under tsarist censorship, the political focus is clear enough: cure the “opportunist abscess” and take the plunge for revolution. At the same time, he recognised the theoretical possibility that even in its state of decay capitalism (imperialism) may continue to exist “for a fairly long period”, particularly if opportunism in the labour movement is not dealt a death-blow. This is what we witness today; while the other possibility was actualized by Lenin who led the Bolsheviks in defeating opportunism and founding the world’s first socialist state as well as the Third (Communist) International.

But was it possible, and theoretically justifiable, to try and establish socialism in one country? Certainly not, roared the windbags and bigwigs of theory, who had learnt Marxism by rote. Didn’t Marx and Engels tell us that socialism is to be built simultaneously in all, or at least several, advanced capitalist countries? Yes they did — replied Lenin — but conditions have changed radically. At its highest and final stage, capitalism has stretched itself into a world imperialist system, but the chain is under severe strain and liable to snap at the weakest link, where socialism emerges in one country at a time. However, imperialism does have the economic and political resources and resilience to reconnect the remaining links and carry on till the next break gives it a shudder down the spine.

How many such breaks can imperialism survive, and for how long? When will it finally collapse altogether, and how? Lenin never allowed himself the luxury of toying with such childish questions. The road ahead is clear, the enemy is sighted, the hour has struck for charging forward rather than speculating on the probable twists and turns. Such was the message of Lenin, and the result was November revolution.

So these are the main economic and political dimensions of imperialism. We can grasp the finer points better when we view the Leninist theory in contrast against the view of the German Marxist thinker Karl Kautsky:

“Karl Kautsky … refuses to regard imperialism as a “phase of capitalism” and defines it as a policy “preferred” by finance capital, a tendency of “industrial” countries to annex “agrarian” countries. Kautsky’s definition is thoroughly false from the theoretical standpoint. What distinguishes imperialism is the rule not of industrial capital, but of finance capital, the striving to annex not agrarian countries particularly, but every kind of country. Kautsky divorces imperialist politics from imperialist economics, he divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics in order to pave the way for his vulgar bourgeois reformism such as “disarmament”, “ultra-imperialism” and similar nonsense. The whole purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to obscure the most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the theory of “unity” with the apologists of imperialism, the outright social-chauvinists and opportunists.” (Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism)

Thus, starting from the same set of facts, Kautsky and Lenin reached diametrically opposite conclusions. In the monopolies, for example, Kautsky saw the strength of capitalism and the possibility of its passage to a higher, peaceful, ultra-imperialist stage: Lenin saw the decay of capitalism and the beginning of its transition to socialism. In a word, Kautsky used the words of Marx to kill the spirit of Marx. The same was true for his views on state and revolution. The following comment from The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky sums up the real worth of Kautskyism:

“Marxism is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; everything is recognised in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of struggle, the propaganda and preparation of those methods, and the education of the masses in this direction.”

Well, don’t we still find so many Kautskys around?