Discussion
On the Revolutionary Theory and Practice of Leninism - Part 5: Imperialism
One of the most important contributions of Lenin to revolutionary social science was his elaboration of the new stage of capitalism which had emerged in the final years of the 19th century and the first few years of the 20th century. The new capitalist imperialism is now a century old and has undergone many changes. In order to analyze the significance of those changes, Modern Communism considers it essential to study what Lenin had to say about imperialism during his time.
Lenin's pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in the spring of 1916, not only summed up the earlier work of Hilferding, Hobson and various other economists, but also placed the examination of imperialism on a sound theoretical basis and systematically demolished the numerous opportunist theories on the subject.
In particular, Lenin argued against the thesis that imperialism was merely a policy of certain capitalists and that other policies - democracy, peace, free trade, etc. - were also possibilities. In this pamphlet, Lenin proved that imperialism was not a matter of policy of some "bad" capitalists, but rather the inevitable consequence of capitalist development. Marx had already shown how capitalist competition necessarily leads to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development, leads to monopoly. Lenin showed that by the turn of the 20th century this prediction of Marx had become a reality, at least in Europe and the United States. In other words, imperialism emerges out of the economic realities of capitalism and not out of the mistaken or greedy policies of individual capitalists. This is no small point because a hallmark of right opportunism during Lenin's day (and of social democracy to this day) was the thesis that imperialism was merely an "excess" of capitalism and that governments could eliminate these excesses and restore the "democracy" of the period of laissez-faire capitalism. By showing that laissez-faire capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, to imperialism, Lenin demonstrated the absurdity of the opportunist position.
A Definition of Imperialism
Lenin warns of the dangers inherent in attempting to define such a complex phenomenon, arguing that any definition is bound to be incomplete and inadequate in some respects. However, he does set out some of the main features of capitalist imperialism as being capitalism in that stage of development where: "1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves; and, 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed."(Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Foreign Languages Press, 1975 page 106)
Contradictory Tendencies Under Imperialism
These main features of imperialism give rise to a number of tendencies, many of which are contradictory. Failing to recognize these contradictory tendencies or exaggerating one tendency to the exclusion of others can lead to erroneous conclusions and opportunist politics. For example, much is made of the enormous scientific and technological advances of the past century. While it is true that the concentration of production and capital under imperialism leads to the socialization of science and unprecedented rates of scientific and technological advances, there is also a tendency under monopoly to retard and impede scientific and technological developments. Monopoly capitalism subordinates the entire society, including science, to the interests of the financial oligarchy, so research and development generally takes place only in those areas where there is potential for maximum profits. The monopoly capitalists also dictate which inventions get marketed and which do not, again on the basis of what is profitable to them. As a result, science and technology advance in an uneven manner, with rapid advances in some fields being offset by relative stagnation in others. Entire areas of the world are not only denied access to the fruits of science, but also billions of people are denied a basic education and their potential contributions to science and technology are lost. The elimination of these distortions would result in far more rapid advances in science and technology than those we have already witnessed.
Another example of contradictory tendencies under imperialism is the issue of competition, itself. On the one hand, as mentioned earlier, competition inevitably gives rise to concentration of production and capital and eventually to monopoly. However, due to the uneven development of capitalism and due to the fact that no monopoly can be absolute forever, monopoly cannot succeed in suppressing competition altogether. Competing imperialist corporations and groups of corporations may reach agreements on dividing the markets between themselves at various times, but since they are all striving to establish their own monopoly over the entire market, competition is not eliminated, but actually raised to higher level.
The development of a financial oligarchy also gives rise to contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, it creates possibilities for the wide scale rationalization of production. Markets and sources of raw materials can be calculated to a far greater extent than under conditions of non-monopoly capitalism, and the process of production in individual enterprises can be planned to the hilt. However, while production is socialized on a vast scale, the ownership and control of the means of production not only remains private, but is rapidly becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. As a result, the planning of production cannot be extended to the entire society and the anarchy of production typical of laissez-faire capitalism remains. The private ownership of the means of production does not permit the uninterrupted growth and development of the vast productive forces of the society because the motive of production under monopoly capitalism, the making of maximum profit, is too narrow. Therefore, the crises of overproduction that occur under laissez-faire capitalism become even more severe and widespread in the imperialist stage of capitalism.
Another phenomenon created by the rise of a financial oligarchy is that, while imperialism creates conditions for the extremely rapid development of capitalist production in every country in the world, it also creates conditions for increasing parasitism and decay. Whole sections of society are removed from any form of productive activity and make their living from "clipping coupons" and speculating in the financial markets. In turn, an ever-increasing section of the working population is reduced to the level of serving the needs of the wealthy parasites. So, while imperialism is increasing the productive capacities in the colonies and dependent countries, it tends to reduce the productive capacity in the imperialist "homeland".
The predominant role of the export of capital under imperialism also gives rise to contradictory tendencies. The old capitalist colonialism based on mercantile capitalism sought to improve agricultural production and the transportation infrastructure within the colonies as a means of increasing the availability of raw materials for export to the motherland. Under conditions of imperialism the super abundance of capital in the biggest capitalist countries forces the monopoly capitalists to find investment opportunities abroad. This, in turn, spurs the development of manufacturing in the colonies. This feature of imperialism has a number of consequences. It further escalates the parasitism and decay in the imperialist homeland by increasingly transferring industrial production to areas where labour is cheap. It also intensifies the crisis of overproduction to global levels, thereby exacerbating the conflicts between competing imperialist blocs.
The fact that the entire world had already been divided up between the biggest capitalist powers by the turn of the 20th century means that any shift in the balance of economic and/or military power between the imperialist powers must lead to a struggle for the re-division of the world between them. During the 20th century, this reality led to two world wars and untold suffering for billions of people around the world.
Next issue: Imperialism and War