Discussion

On the Revolutionary Theory and Practice of Leninism - Part 6: Imperialism and War

Lenin wrote extensively about the different types of wars throughout history and in modern times, their character and historical significance, the attitude of socialists towards war in general and the specific wars that took place in his time. Prior to the war between England and Germany and their allies that broke out in 1914 the socialist parties had jointly declared that the working class and people could not support such a war. It would be a war waged for the sake of the profits of the capitalists and for the imperialist and predatory ambitions of the great powers. Furthermore, they declared that in the event of war breaking out, the socialist parties would take advantage of the economic and political crisis to hasten the downfall of capitalism. They would lead the workers on an international scale in a revolutionary struggle against their own governments and for socialist revolution.

However, when war did break out many of the leaders of the socialist parties abandoned these tactics of the proletarian revolution and took the side of their own governments in the war in the name of "defence of the fatherland". While he led the Russian workers in defeating their own government and bringing about socialist revolution, Lenin also opposed the social-chauvinism of opportunist leaders. He exposed the advocacy of the idea of "defence of the fatherland", as being actually the defence of the privileges, advantages, robbery and violence of one's "own" or every imperialist bourgeoisie. He also opposed various theories about imperialism and war which could mislead the working class and people away from achieving real and lasting peace.

The opportunists of Lenin's time detached the politics of imperialism from its economics. They held that annexations were a policy "preferred" by finance capital and that another policy was possible on the very same basis of finance capital. In other words, they advocated that monopolies in economics are compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent, non-annexationist methods in politics.

Based on this argument, it would follow that the territorial division and re-division of the world among the biggest capitalist states is compatible with a non-imperialist policy. Lenin viewed this as a slurring over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, the result of which is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism. He argued that monopoly in economics necessarily results in monopoly in politics -- that politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction.

Still today, some people continue to detach the politics of imperialism from its economics. They maintain that the problem is merely with the "extremist" policies of certain ruling circles in some of the imperialist countries. Based on this premise they encourage people to support other representatives of the ruling circles who promise a different policy. Traditionally, in the United States they have supported the Democratic Party, in Britain the Labour Party, and in Canada the Liberals and NDP. As even this "democratic" wing of imperialism has revealed itself on many occasions to be just as warmongering as the "reactionary" wing, the view is given that people should support the "left" of the "democratic" wing of these political parties. In this way, the struggle for peace is detached from and diverted away from the struggle against imperialism.

The opportunists of Lenin's time held out hopes of permanent peace being possible under capitalism. They invented a theory of "ultra-imperialism" or "super-imperialism". This promised that the current imperialist policy could be supplanted by a new "ultra-imperialist" policy, which would introduce the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital in place of the mutual rivalries of national finance capital. How different is this claim than the present-day claims by the leaders of the imperialist states about the benefits of "globalization"? Lenin said that the social significance of this theory is that it could console the people by distracting their attention from the sharp antagonisms and acute problems of the present times, and direct it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary "ultra-imperialism" of the future, a future of permanent peace.

Lenin pointed out that imperialist countries form alliances against one another in order to protect or enlarge their possessions, their interests and their "spheres of influence". These alliances could be called "inter-imperialist" or "ultra-imperialist" alliances. Lenin even gave examples of alliances of all the imperialist countries for the "peaceful" division of certain parts of the world. These were
alliances of internationally united finance capital. But he pointed out that such alliances could only be temporary "for any other basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of influence, of interests, of colonies, etc., than a calculation of the strength of the participants in the division, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. is inconceivable. And the strength of these participants in the division does not change to an equal degree, for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under capitalism." (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Foreign Languages Press, 1975, p. 144)

Consequently, Lenin considered these "inter-imperialist" or "ultra-imperialist" alliances nothing more than a truce in periods between wars. "Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in
their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, giving rise to alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle out of one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world politics." (Imperialism pp. 144-145).

In our own time we have witnessed the change in relative strength of the imperialist countries of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Sates, and of the social-imperialist Soviet Union. We have witnessed the emergence of new economic, political and military alliances and the collapse of old ones. What has remained constant is imperialist wars of aggression and the threat of another world imperialist war. The collapse of the "bi-polar" division of the world under the U.S. and Soviet Union was supposed to lead to a lessening of tensions and a reduction of the arms race. But the emergence of a "uni-polar" world under the U.S. has led to the opposite. The existence of a "multi-polar" division of the world would similarly not eliminate wars of aggression and the danger of inter-imperialist world war.

Finally, Lenin stated that socialists will take a most ardent part in every movement and in every demonstration in favour of peace "but they will not deceive the people by conceding the idea that
peace without annexations, without the oppression of nations, without plunder, without the germs of new wars among the present governments and ruling classes is possible in the absence of a revolutionary movement." (Lenin on War and Peace, p. 25-26.)