Scientific Concept of Imperialism
PDF link Academia, PDF link Yandex
HTML format divided by sections
These articles are and will be
the synopsis of the book on imperialism I was working on for 3 years now that I
have decided to give up due to the difficulties that comes with aging. Draft
book had more and lengthy quotes from Lenin and Stalin. Acknowledging the fact
that the laziness of people to read books and long articles, I have
decided to summarize each section as best as I can to make it comprehensible by
the readers. This will take some time due to the pressing developments in our
current dynamic world and on going conflicts that I feel obligated to pay
attention and prepare short analysis for.
I will add two attachments I
consider which to be extremely important; 1) The character of wars in
the era of technology differing from the previous wars 2) I will touch
upon the most talked and written about subject, the question of "Chinese
Imperialism" based on the scientific definition of imperialism,
rather than based on learned by rote theories, the unscientific ones,
that widely exist.
Foreword
I'm sure that some people will turn up their noses at this article, assuming they already know what "imperialism" means. This article, prepared after three years of research, study and comprehending, is not for those who "believe they already know everything," but for those like me who consider themselves Marxist-Leninist students and strive to learn the topics in depth.
Today, the subject of imperialism has become a term completely disconnected from the dialectics of Marxism, perceived and applied based on rote-based theories, solely based on its "economic" essence. Therefore, almost every country is labeled "imperialist" based on subjectivity. This is not a new approach. “Worse still”, Lenin argued in his time, "the scientific concept of imperialism has been reduced to a term of abuse applied to those with whom imperialists are in direct competition, their rivals, and their opponents." This is what is generally done today.
The same Kautskyite practice of dismantling imperialism's dialectical unity and attributing it solely to its economic or political essence is the dominant practice of today. Among the hundreds of articles I've read in various languages on Russia, especially on Chinese imperialism, I haven't seen a single convincing Marxist-Leninist piece that addresses the subject dialectically and relies on objective and concrete data.
These articles either rely on memorized economic principles, ignoring the political aspect, or, worse yet (including a few articles I've read from Türkiye), deviating from the bourgeois practice of supporting their claims with bogus, unsubstantiated, or even impossible-to-prove bourgeois data. A Marxist-Leninist's reliance on false data to prove something essentially eliminates their credibility. Marxism-Leninism is real, based on concrete facts. But research laziness and a lack of knowledge of the scientific definition of imperialism prevent even a valid argument from being presented convincingly.
In this lengthy article, which I reduced from 400 pages to 40+, I attempted to summarize, using Lenin's words, the "scientific concept of imperialism," using quotes from Lenin and Stalin. In other words, I addressed not only the "economic essence of imperialism" but also its "political essence," taking into account the "indispensable" reality of war for imperialism. I included wars from the eras of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, and their perspectives. Because imperialism and war are inseparable twins, I addressed the development of a country's "war industry," the necessity of directing the economy "on a war footing," and, consequently, the question of whether a country's military industry is "offensive" or "defensive."
I hope it will be useful to some readers.
"If a Communist took
it into his head to boast about his communism because of the ready-made
conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of
serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which he must examine
critically, he would be a very deplorable Communist." (27)
********
Lenin and Stalin on Imperialism and imperialist war
'The scientific concept of
imperialism, moreover, is reduced to a sort of term
of abuse applied to the immediate competitors, rivals, and opponents
of imperialists.”*
Introduction
What really did Lenin mean
by “scientific concept of imperialism?
The definition of
“imperialism” used in our time in order to determine if a
country is imperialist or not is overwhelmingly limited to its economic
aspect, totally disregarding its “political-military” aspects.
Lenin in his forward to Imperialism stated that “pamphlet was written with an
eye to the tsarist censorship. Hence,” he said, ”I was not only forced to confine
myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis
of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on
politics with extreme caution… I trust that this pamphlet will
help the reader to understand the fundamental economic question,
that of the economic essence of imperialism.” (1)
Most everyone learn Leninism
through memorizing the theories disconnected from the entire content- through
which the variations, conditions, situations, and background context of the
definition of imperialism is understood. Defining imperialism solely based on
its economic context is a betrayal of Marxism Leninism and its dialectics. It
is a clear indication of not
comprehending the Leninist theory of scientific content
of imperialism.
Learned by rote approaches
to Lenin’s definition of imperialism reveals itself with the
repetition of his 5th condition; “the territorial division of
the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is
completed.” That actually refers to the end of an era and
to the imperialists (in its scientific definition) of that newly emerged
era in its initial phase. Due to the law of unequal economic
development new imperialist countries will inevitably emerge, first fitting in their
economic definition, and possibly later in its combined-scientific
definition. In other words, the 5th condition does
not tell anything about the new emerging imperialists of “new era”
other than the “pre-existing” ones. Similarly, the fourth
condition;” the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations
which share the world among themselves” refer to the development in
regard to the existing imperialist(s). Only the first three
is applicable to define new imperialist countries in their economic
aspect.
“The law of uneven development in
the period of imperialism” says Stalin, “ means the spasmodic development of
some countries in relation to others, the rapid ousting of some countries from
the world market by others, the periodic redistribution of the already
divided world in the order of military clashes and military
catastrophes... the fact that the world has already been divided among
imperialist groups, there are no more “free”, unoccupied territories
in the world, and in order to occupy new markets and sources of raw materials,
in order to expand, one must take from others this
territory by force… the unprecedented development of
technology.. made it easier for some countries to leap ahead of others, for the
more powerful countries to be ousted by less powerful but rapidly developing
countries. The old distribution of spheres of influence
between individual imperialist groups each time comes into conflict with the new
alignment of forces on the world market… The world imperialist
war was the first attempt to redistribute an already divided
world. Needless to say, the first attempt at redistribution must
be followed by a second attempt, for which preparatory work is already
underway in the imperialist camp.” (2)
Defining imperialism as a “specific
historic category” Lenin points out the mistakes of approach
which coincidently mistakes of our days too. He states that
Imperialism; “upholds the structure of finance capital; it
subjugates the world to the domination of finance capital; in
place of the old capitalist production relations, it puts the production
relations of finance capital. Just as finance capitalism (which must
not be confused with money capital, for finance capital is
characterized by being simultaneously banking and industrial capital) is
an historically limited epoch, confined only to
the last few decades, so imperialism, as the policy of finance capital, is a
specific historic category.”.. “war is a continuation of politics
by other means… Politics itself, however, is an active "continuation." (3)
Scientific definition of imperialism and application of it to a country must consider, objective analysis and include the economic and political aspects. Since war is a continuation of politics in different forms, war history and war preparation, militarization of industry of any given country should be considered for the analysis. And since waging war totally depends on the overall strength of industry and militarization, the military industry of that given country should be studied, especially to determine if it is mainly defense focused or offense focused. Because, while the defense-focused military industry is centered on its own territorial protection and deterrence, the offense-focused military industry focuses on projecting power. While newly industrialized nations gradually adopt a balanced strategy, developing both defensive and offensive technologies to ensure comprehensive national security, its main military industry remains to be offensive only in short distance, confined within surrounding territory.
In
contrast, offense focused imperialist countries focuses on the ability
to launch attacks quickly and over extended distances. The ratio of
the “balance” in offense and defense may be a clear indication
of whether it is for protection of it’s own
territory and deterrence or projecting power to other nations.
Because for the defense focused nations, defense is often rooted in
protectionist needs, while limited offensive capabilities are seen as
deterrents against potential aggression. For the offense
focused nations, territorial defense capability, in most cases
minimized while the offensive capability is maximized for
projecting power. This analysis can give a better understanding and
conclusion to determine if a given country is imperialist or not in
its scientific definition at any given time. That does not mean, however, due
to the uneven economic development that given country will remain as
such indefinitely. Marxist Leninists do not evaluate based on
the forecast of what will happen, but based on the concrete data at any given
time on any subject. "Marxist must proceed not from what is
possible, but from what is real". (33)
If we summarize;
Imperialist foreign economic
policy reveals itself first and foremost, with the application of all
possible types of prohibitions and limitations on imports and exports,
including the entire system of tariff policy, one sided trade
agreements, support for “national industries” abroad, premiums
of all sorts, the search for concessions and profitable lending opportunities,
etc., which is the essence of an imperialist economic policy.
So the definition and
application of “imperialist” should be determined by the assessment of
a country’s foreign economic and political policy combined.
Political policy of an imperialist country implies use of force in
various forms, more often, in the form of wars whether it be proxy or
direct war.
“The
problem of imperialism is not only a most
essential one, but, we may say it is the most essential problem in
that realm of economic science which examines the changing forms of
capitalism in recent times. Everyone interested not only in economics
but in any sphere of present-day social life must acquaint
himself with the facts relating to this problem, as presented
by the author in such detail on the basis of the latest available data. Needless to say that there can be no concrete
historical analysis of war, if that analysis does not have for its
basis a full understanding of the nature of imperialism, both
from its economic and political aspects. Without this, it is
impossible to approach an understanding of the economic and diplomatic
situation of the last decades, and without such an understanding, it is
ridiculous even to speak of forming a correct view on war. (2)
Not every war is imperialists and
not every use of force is in the form of a war. In his critique of Kautsky
Lenin summarized the policy in one word- use of force.
“”Imperialism is a striving for
annexations… It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism
is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction... The
essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of
imperialism from its economics…Finance capital and the trusts do not
diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various
parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed,
what other solution of the contradictions can be found under capitalism
than that of force?” (1)
Here too, Lenin stresses
the direct connection between economics and politics, between
exploitation and violence and reaction in its foreign policy for
the definition of imperialism. Bukharin in his book which the
introduction is written by Lenin, deals with the definitions of imperialism.
He states;
"The second very widespread
"theory" of imperialism defines it as the policy of conquest
in general… Simple as this theory may be, it is absolutely untrue.
It is untrue because it "explains" everything, i.e., it
explains absolutely nothing. “
“Every policy of the
ruling classes ("pure" policy, military policy, economic
policy) has a perfectly definite functional significance… War
serves to reproduce definite relations of production. War of
conquest serves to reproduce those relations on a wider scale. Simply
to define war, however, as conquest is entirely
insufficient, for the simple reason that in doing so we fail
to indicate the main thing, namely, what production relations are strengthened or extended
by the war, what basis is widened by a given "policy of
conquest… Bourgeois science does not see and does not wish to see
this. It does not understand that a basis for the
classification of various "policies" must exist in
the social economy out of which the "policies" arise.
" (3)
An abstract repetition of “war is
a continuation of politics by other means”, as if it explains everything is
a common ready-made solution used to all questions of wars,
however, without actually studying the given “politics” itself
under that given concrete conditions. Without studying foreign
economic and political policy of a given country at a given period
of time and classifying a country as “imperialist” is against
the sole of Marxism Leninism, and in most cases incorrect
labeling because it only considers the economic
definition of imperialism. It does consider and explains absolutely
nothing about the political aspects of the definition without
which the definition and application of it - labeling cannot be
correct.
Economic definition of imperialism
The economic essence of
imperialism lies in the replacement of free competition by the
domination of monopolies. The main features and requirements of the basic
economic law of monopoly capitalism are as follows:
Imperialism, or monopoly
capitalism, is the highest and last stage in the development of the capitalist
mode of production. The transition from pre‐monopoly capitalism to monopoly
capitalism taking place during the last third of the 19th century, finally took
shape by the beginning of the 20th century.
“Thus, the basic economic law of
capitalism ‐ the law of surplus value ‐ in the period of imperialism
further developed and concretized.” Under pre‐monopoly
capitalism the dominance of free competition led to an equalization of the rate
of profit of individual capitalists,
under imperialism the monopolies ensure for themselves a monopolistically
high, maximum profit. It is the maximum profit that is the
engine of monopoly capitalism.” (31)
It is important to note here that
“Monopolies” generally refer to single entities controlling
the entire market for a given particular goods or services.
“Trusts”, “cartels” etc., refer to combination of companies controlling the
substantial portion of market for goods and services. Financial oligarchy
rules trusts; the financial oligarchy rules the country.
Lenin in his article
“Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?”, stated;
”Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly
capitalism…” (4) In his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism, Lenin details its definition of imperialism that includes the basic
features:
(1) the concentration of
production and capital 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.” (3)
I have removed the 4th and
5th definition in this section for it was related to the
“imperialists” of that given era which cannot be applied to new era for the
purpose of defining new “imperialists”. Due to the law of uneven economic
development new “imperialist” countries (in its
economic definition) emerge against the old-victorious
ones. As Stalin noted; “The redistribution of the world and
spheres of influence, carried out as a result of the last imperialist war, has
already managed to become "obsolete". Some new countries
have come forward.. A furious struggle is going on for sales markets, for
markets for the export of capital, for sea and land roads to these markets, for
a new redivision of the world… the growth of all these contradictions
means the growth of the crisis of world capitalism, despite the fact of
stabilization, a crisis incomparably deeper than the crisis
before the last imperialist war… It is not surprising that imperialism is
preparing for a new war, seeing in it the only way to resolve this crisis.”
(16)
As far as condition 3 is
concerned, one has to pay attention and make the distinction between exporting
goods, services and exporting capital- money flowing out
of the country for investments, loans, or other capital flows. Based on this
condition, one easily can end up labeling Japan, Norway
and so many new developed countries with their monopoly capitalist industries as
“imperialist”. They are “economically” imperialists who plunder under
the military and political shadow of “Imperialists” in its
scientific term. So, they are not really imperialist in their combined
definition. Similarly, one should come to the conclusion that the US is
not an imperialist country because while historically, once the U.S.
was a dominant capital exporter, it is now a significant capital
importer. In this sense even the 3rd condition is
not sufficient enough to determine if a country is imperialist
or not.
Although not
contradicting Lenin, arguments made that “what differs from
Lenin’s era is that the development of information and
communications technologies, foreign direct investment and
international trade and industrial transfers have reached new heights, to the
degree of internationalization of production and circulation overshadowing
the past. The capital is being redistributed globally from
production to circulation. This brought about concentration of capital and lead
to multinational finance capital corporations. These corporations
developed links with the rest of the finance capital and formed financial monopoly
organizations. They controlled and run international production, trade,
banking, transactions, and exchange values. They have shaped
the world economic and political system aligned with their needs in
order to eliminate any barriers whether it be a country or an
institution-organisation.
Lenin had already foreseen this development and had
stated that ; “we see the rapid expansion of a close network of channels which
cover the whole country, centralizing all capital and all
revenues, transforming thousands and thousands of scattered economic
enterprises into a single national, capitalist, and then into
a world capitalist economy.” (1)
Contrary
to the bourgeois liberal and neo-communist arguments, the essence of
imperialism is unchanged. The substance still remains to be
the monopoly capital’s domination. The change is only in forms and
methods evolved. It is not a “new stage” of imperialism in its essence but a
higher stage with the same essence. It does not break Lenin’s framework
but deepens it. In this higher stage it accelerates capital export
(Lenin’s Feature 3), through the Internationalization of Production, finance
capital (Feature 2), unshackles from national borders.
Modern iterations of "international monopolist combines" digital
cartels (Feature 4) first among the existing (previous) imperialists
and due to the uneven economic development law the newly emerged ones
gradually form their own. In this higher stage, political supremacy is
carried out via Digital and Financial Tools through the control of
international institutions like SWIFT.
This process of reaching a higher
stage has been realized through Merging Finance capital with
industries which necessitated the formation of State capitalism and the
militarization of industry, and developing its economy on war footing. That
development helped to create and followed by Internationalization
of Finance and Financial Institutions.
State Capitalism
“As the power of
individual capitalist organizations grows stronger, as their influence
expands, competition in the world market becomes more and more fierce
and destructive. Each of the competing parties starts relying
on the resources of entire countries and, moreover, acts hand in
hand with powerful state organizations. On the world market,
as well as on national markets, the struggle between powerful capitalist trusts
is waged along three main lines: 1) the struggle for
markets,2) struggle for raw material markets, 3) the struggle for capital
investment markets.
These competitions are closely
connected with each other and represent the three sides of the single
capitalist competition. Competition transferring to
the world market, leads to the transformation of “peaceful” competition
into a competition where the force is used, lead to the birth
of imperialism as an inevitable policy of modern
states.” (32)
The organizational process, which
embraces more and mere branches of the “national economy” through the creation
of combined enterprises and through the organizational role of the
banks, has led to the conversion of each developed “national
system” of capitalism into a “state-capitalist trust.”[30]
“On the other hand, the process
of development of the productive forces of the world economy drives
these “national” systems into the most acute conflicts in their competitive
struggle for the world market. These two basic facts of contemporary
capitalist reality provide us with the key to understanding the “state”
tendencies of contemporary finance capitalism. Why was the bourgeoisie
really so individualistic in the past? Principally because the basic
category of economic life was the private-economic unit, which
confronts all the others as a competitor. The interrelation of people, or the
internal structure of the bourgeoisie as a class, was analogous to this
interrelation among enterprises. As a class the bourgeoisie came out against
the proletariat. But internally, within the limits of the class itself, each
member stood opposed to the other as a competitor. Each hoped to unseat
his opponent by relying upon his own forces, the interplay between
them being positive for the “whole.” But it was not only separate enterprises
and individual people who emerged as the bearers of individualism. The
division of the ruling classes into different groups also played an analogous
role: above all the division into a landed and an industrial
bourgeoisie, followed by lesser divisions between the representatives
of raw material production and manufacturers, commercial and usurer
capital, etc. The epoch of finance capital puts an end to this state of
affairs, the contradiction between different subgroups of the
ruling classes also largely disappears. By collaborating with one
another, almost every category of the bourgeoisie is transformed into the recipients
of dividends, the category of interest becoming the general form of
expression for all so-called “nonlabor incomes.” The holy of holies for every
bourgeois (and landlord) becomes the bank to which he and his kind are
tied by a thousand threads.
In total contrast to the
state in the epoch of industrial capitalism, the imperialist
state is characterized by an extraordinary increase in the complexity
of its functions and by an impetuous incursion into the economic life of
society. It reveals a tendency to take over the whole productive sphere
and the whole sphere of commodity circulation. Intermediate types of mixed
enterprises will be replaced by pure state regulations, for in this
way the centralization process can advance further. All the members of
the ruling classes , (or more accurately, of the ruling class, for
finance capitalism gradually eliminates the different subgroups of the ruling
classes, uniting them in a single finance-capitalist clique) become
shareholders, or partners in a gigantic state-enterprise - Imperialist
State. From being the preserver and defender of exploitation, the state is
transformed into a single, centralized, exploiting organization that is
confronted directly by the proletariat, the object of exploitation. A
hierarchically constructed bureaucracy fulfils the organizing functions in
complete accord with the military authorities, whose significance and
power steadily grow. The national economy is absorbed into the state,
which is constructed in a military fashion and has at its
disposal an enormous, disciplined army and navy. (28)
Summarizing Lenin’s
description of Imperialism’s Parasitic Evolution to its highest
stage; it has gone through; 1) the emergence of
industrial monopolies, monopolization stage, 2) merging of Banks with industry,
Finance Capital Fusion, 3) moving factories abroad, deindustrialization
of home economies, Capital Export, 4) funding arms
production to absorb surplus and project power, Militarized
Reproduction, 5) detachment of capital from production,
living off speculation, debt, and rent, Financial Parasitism. Formation of a
"rentier state" as visibly seen in current U.S.
and UK.
Lets summarize it;
Deindustrialization and emergence of Military- Tech- Service
industry as primary industries
The triad of deindustrialization,
militarization of industry, and internationalization of finance
capital represents the logical evolution of monopoly capitalism in its
imperialist stage, as analyzed by Lenin and later Marxists.
Deindustrialization isn't an accidental
development but stems from finance capital's pursuit of higher
returns abroad. Monopolies shift industrial capital to the Global South for
cheaper labor, weaker regulations, and higher returns; the process of capital
export for higher profits as witnessed in U.S manufacturing moving to
other low labor cost countries who also offer appealing concessions .
Financialization of economy
reflects itself in Finance capital’s prioritizing in quick
and high return speculative activities (stocks, derivatives, real
estate) over long term low return productive investments. In general profits
from manufacturing is 3–5%, profits from finance is 15–20%
Militarization of
economy compensates for industrial decline by creating guaranteed
markets for monopolies. Internationalized finance completes this trifecta by detaching
capital from national productive bases.
Lenin foresaw this trajectory. He said that "imperialism is parasitic,
decaying capitalism moving toward universal crisis." The
deindustrialization-militarization-financialization triad represents
capitalism’s retreat from productive progress, It relies
more on force and fraud to
sustain profits.
Conclusion for the section
It is the hegemony of the
US based finance capital over these centralized international finance
capital , financial monopoly organizations and its
currency that makes the US an imperialist country in its
economic definition ; not because it exports capital. Under these
conditions of international finance capital monopoly, its hegemony and
control, any “export of capital” by any other country,
regardless of its amount, does not make any country “imperialist” (in
its scientific meaning) even in some case in its
economic sense as long as the hegemony and control of
the US based finance capital reigns over the entire trade and banking
transactions.At best we may call them sub-imperialist countries fitting only the economic
definition of the term.
“Capitalist society” says Bukharin, “is unthinkable
without armaments, as it is unthinkable without wars. And
just as it is true that not low prices cause competition but, on the contrary,
competition causes low prices, it is equally true that not the
existence of arms is the prime cause and the moving force in wars
(although wars are obviously impossible without arms) but, on the
contrary, the inevitableness of economic conflicts conditions the
existence of arms. This is why in our times, when economic conflicts have
reached an unusual degree of intensity, we are witnessing a mad orgy of
armaments. Thus the rule of finance capital implies both;
imperialism (in its economic sense E.A) and
militarism (in its political sense E.A). In this
sense militarism is no less a typical historic phenomenon than
finance capital itself… even where there are relatively
equal economic structures..” (3)
As a conclusion, to determine and
label a country as imperialist solely relying on the economic
definition of imperialism divorced from its political definition is
not a Marxist Leninist approach, but an infantile one, or at
best, some one who is oblivious to dialectics of Marxism, and
Marxist-Leninist theories.
Lets study the “political”
definition of imperialism starting with “militarization and war”.
“Political” definition of imperialism
What most analyzers misses in
their assessment and/or comparative studies of countries is
the fact that Militarization requires perpetual enemies (e.g.,
"terrorism," "authoritarian states") in order to
feed its industry and economy. The need for unending conflicts and wars shapes
its foreign policy. This makes up the core of the “political
definition” of imperialism and comparative study of “imperialist”
countries that fit the “economic definition”.
Thus, the Political definition
of imperialist state may be summarized as “the systematic
militarization of the economy, converting productive capacity into
instruments of subjugation, while financial/tech/trade systems are weaponized
to sustain global dominance.”
What we have to keep in mind is
that neither Lenin nor Bukharin made core premise that monopoly capitalism
is unthinkable without wars as a “constant state” of
imperialism but a “tendency” based on or more
like depending on its economic development and the level of the progress
in its military industry, which has been clarified in theory and practice
by Stalin during the Second World War. Stalin's concrete analysis
in 1935 was based on this concrete situation of Uneven
Militarization within the imperialist countries.
Stalin’s observation
highlighted key differentiators among imperialist states and
considered in its assessment. (as we will see in his assessment in the
section of wars- 2nd WW)
He had come to the conclusion
that the economies of Fascist States (Germany/Italy) was wholly
subordinated to military needs. They succeeded building their economy in full
war footing. However, as an inevitable consequence they were burning
foreign reserves/raw materials for the development of military industry and
rearmament. They were squandering all their crucial
resources. That brought about the immediate aggression for
territorial revanchism. Aggressive posturing.
Other Imperialist Powers (UK,
USA, France) on the hand were reorganizing their industries to that
direction but still retaining civilian sectors. They were
preparing for war but avoiding full economic conversion. They were preserving
their reserves of crucial resources. They were rearming to
protect their colonies, sources of raw materials and their markets. Defensive
posturing.
It is very crucial to understand Stalin’s approach and classification to study the current situation and make concrete assessment based on the concrete situation. He was pointing to the fact that;
1) the imperialist states occupy different stages of the
war-economy spectrum based on the severity of crisis they are
in which makes them desperate while some others have relative stability.
2) Severe crisis within countries
relying on their military industry necessitates conflicts and
wars while the others still makes profits from civilian
markets requires stability and peace.
3) While those who already ”
have” colonies, sources of raw materials and their markets defend
the status quo; those who "have-not" seek redistribution
through force.
“Using force for subjugation and
plunder as an inevitable policy; a continuation of policy in different form
– what actually is the policy? "War is the continuation
of politics by other", (i.e., violent) "means" (7)
“The law of uneven development in
the period of imperialism” says Stalin, “ means the spasmodic development of
some countries in relation to others, the rapid ousting of some countries from
the world market by others, the periodic redistribution of the already
divided world in the order of military clashes and military
catastrophes... the fact that the world has already been divided among
imperialist groups, there are no more “free”, unoccupied territories
in the world, and in order to occupy new markets and sources of raw
materials, in order to expand, one must take from others this territory by
force… the unprecedented development of technology.. made it easier for
some countries to leap ahead of others, for the more powerful countries to be
ousted by less powerful but rapidly developing countries. The old
distribution of spheres of influence between individual imperialist
groups each time comes into conflict with the new alignment of forces on
the world market… The world imperialist war was the first attempt to
redistribute an already divided world. Needless to say, the first
attempt at redistribution must be followed by a second attempt, for which
preparatory work is already underway in the imperialist camp.” (26)
Imperialism and war are inseparable twins.
Here Lenin directly connects the
“internal regime and policy” of a given country for any “use
of force” or for wars. “If they both are the two sides
of the same coin”, some will say, ” then our attitude to a “war”
will not be different than our attitude to “imperialism”. However, Lenin
clearly points out that “depending on historical conditions, the
relationship of classes and similar data, the attitude towards war must
be different at different times. " (30)
That, dialectically
means, the attitude to “imperialism” will be different at different
times. There will be times, conditions, and situations where
there is no “interests of proletariat in general” but only
the “interests of proletariat” in particular. There will be
times, conditions, and situations where, because of the existence of a “general
interests of proletariat”, the interests of particular will be subordinated to
the interests of the general. In a constantly changing world the
conditions and situations will change, so the attitude to each war will
have to be changed.
“For decades, for almost half a
century, the governments and the ruling classes of England, France, Germany, ,
Italy, Austria, and Russia, pursued
a policy of plundering colonies, of oppressing other nations, of suppressing
the working-class movement. It is this, and only this policy that
is being continued in the present war.
“Modern militarism is the
result of capitalism. In both its forms it is the “vital expression”
of capitalism—as a military force used by the capitalist states in
their external conflicts and as a weapon in the hands of the ruling
classes for suppressing every kind of movement, economic and political, of
the proletariat. (6)
On war tendency of imperialism
While it is accepted
that militarism/war is the result of capitalism, it is
the Universal Tendency of imperialism, as Stalin has shown, one has to make the
dialectic connection and the differentiation of the “law” with the existing conditions
and the concrete expression of the mentioned universal
law.
Studying Stalin’s
concrete analysis; he does reiterate the universal law that “all
imperialist states will militarize”. But Stalin points out that the
pace and intensity of that militarization vary based on
material conditions not only within the given country but in international
scale.
Stalin reiterates
that the war is inherent to monopoly capitalism. But he
points out that its timing depends on internal crises of
each imperialist country and the intensity of the rivalry stage at a given
moment.
Stalin reiterates
that the Finance Capital fuels the war machine. But he points out
that the method of using force, subjugation differs based on the
economy, militarization and having reserves and resources of each “imperialist”
country. It will be different for those who “have” and who
“have-not”, for those who are in crisis and those who are stable,
for those who can provide cheap resources without immediate war, and those who
cannot. One will choose war other will choose economic and political means.
Reading his speeches and writings
in direct connection we can see that Stalin has exposed the
material truth of the inevitability of war economies in
“imperialist” countries. Although the militarization starts
together with the state monopoly capitalism, once imperialist
rivalry intensifies, all capitalist states faces the fact of; either
militarize or be subjugated. His phasing of history wasn’t
mere differentiation but scientific periodization: Phase
1 (1920s): "Peaceful" imperialists (UK/US) dominate via
finance capital, Phase 2 (1930s): Crisis forces fascist states into
total war economies. Phase 3 (1940s): All imperialists fully
militarize (WWII)
As a conclusion to tis section,
Lenin, Bukharin, and Stalin were correct that Imperialism requires
militarization. However, as Stalin clearly observed and
explained its expression is uneven, unequal and may
be in different forms. Especially in our era of technology, weaponizing of
trade, technology and finance is how modern empires subjugate others. That
relatively ends when the imperialist rivalry intensifies,
subjugation by weaponizing the trade and other means becomes ineffective.
Depending on the balance of military power, the practice of subjugation changes
its character – to war, in our technological era, to proxy wars (we will
take upon that issue as an attachment later ).
So, the political definition of imperialism is political
imperialism which reflects itself as structural conversion to
war economy.
The scientific concept of
imperialism is, and made up of the unity of economic and political
definition in order to be correct and apply correctly to any country
at any given moment- not in the expected future as a prediction but
at the given time of the assessment as a fact.
"It is not
wrong to differentiate between the imperialists at a given time, but
we must keep in mind that it is temporary. A temporary
differentiation reflects only the assessment of a given
condition." This is no "exception" to Leninism but it
is Leninism. The enemy of scientific socialism isn’t nuance, but rigidity
that lacks the application of the dialectics of Marxism to the
concrete conditions and situation at a given time.
(I will take upon some of the
new phenomena subjects like “digital production chain”- digital cartels,
fragmented exploitation and weaponization, “data as raw material” and
its weaponization)
Lenin stated:
"War is inevitable as
long as society is split into classes, as long as exploitation exists."
Now we dive in to the question
of war and the differences, different stands on the wars in history.
Historical Types of Imperialist wars in modern times
As we have seen Stalin’s expose
of the material truth of the inevitability of war economies in
“imperialist” countries in which the militarization of economy starts (intensifies)
together with the state monopoly
capitalism and when the
imperialist rivalry intensifies, all capitalist states faces the option
of either militarization
or being subjugated. Stalin phased the history
of wars not by mere differentiation in forms but a scientific
periodization of wars in general and world wars in particular.
The attitude of the left in
general varied towards the wars in each epoch stemming mostly from the ideological
differences. That ideological difference draw the line between the
Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (of all types) which reflected itself on the attitude
of the masses. Lenin’s assessment is important to state here for it still
manifest itself for the current assessments.
“The growth of the upward curve
of capitalism and the exploitation of the semi-colonies and colonies made it
possible for the bourgeoisie of the imperialist powers to provide the
industrial proletariat of their countries with its standard of living, which
was rising slowly but steadily.
This fact explains why a
significant part of the working class in the imperialist countries has
separated from the general mass of the proletariat and has become a labor
aristocracy. And this labor aristocracy served as the basis for revisionism
and the approval of the colonial policy by the social democracy. It was
also the economic basis for social patriotism and for the joint action of the
industrial proletariat with its bourgeoisie during the war.” (34)
“Our attitude towards war” said
Lenin, “is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists
(supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ from
the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and
the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be
abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we
also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the
oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners,
serfs against land-owners, and wage workers against the bourgeoisie, as
legitimate, progressive, and necessary. We Marxists differ from both the
pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from
the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) to study each war
separately. In history there have been numerous wars which,
in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that
inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e.,
benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally
harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or
serfdom), the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (Turkish and Russian).
Therefore, it is necessary to examine the historically specific features
of precisely the present war.” (45)
This statement of Lenin debunks
the learned by rote slogan, the ready made scheme in order to avoid from making
concrete assessment that “no wars between
the capitalist can bring about a progressive result.”
Keeping in mind Lenin’s statement that “depending on
historical conditions, the relationship of classes and similar
data, the attitude towards war must be different at different times
" let’s study the previous wars.
The attitudes against the war
Marxist dialectics call
for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation.
Lenin’s previous statement
dialectically connected and related to the fundamental principle that
our evaluation of any phenomena,
including war, and the stand we take stems from the “interests of working class” and
always with the “interests of their struggle “in mind.
There will be times, conditions,
and situations where there will be no “interests of proletariat in
general” but only the “interests of proletariat” in
particular, and there will be times,
conditions, and situations where, because of the existence of a “general
interests of proletariat”, the interests of particular will be subordinated
to the interests of the general. In a constantly changing world the
conditions and situations will change, so the attitude to each will have to
be different.
Wars during the time of Marx and Engels and their attitudes
The wars during the time of Marx
and Engels had different character as compared to the latter wars. However,
since the West is not “the world” as they proceed from that premises and deny
the bourgeois democratic revolutions and anti-imperialist wars, in fact there are still so many feudal countries,
colonies, semi-colonies in the world, in which the bourgeoisie democratic
revolutions, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist wars are still on the agenda. As far as choosing or standing by a
capitalist state against another one is
concerned, it is a history of a “bygone” period. The stand is determined
by the concrete analysis and the determination of the stand based on the
“interests of working class”. Anti-imperialist wars serve the interests of
working class regardless of the class nature of the forces waging the
anti-imperialist war.
During the era of Marx and
Engels, Mid-19th Century, Wars were primarily bourgeois-democratic against
feudalism and dynastic empires. In Marx’s time bourgeoisie was historically
progressive in dismantling feudalism, with the exception of reactionary colonial
wars waged by the colonizer countries making anti-colonial wars objectively
progressive.
Lenin in his critique of Potresoy
clarifies the old epoch and its class context in regard to
Marx attitude to the wars and the question of the “the success of which
bourgeoisie is more desirable”.
“Potresov
has failed to notice that, to Marx in 1859 (as well as in
a number of later cases), the question of “the success of which
side is more desirable” meant asking “the success of which
bourgeoisie is more desirable”. Potresov has failed to notice that
Marx was working on the problem at a time when there existed
indubitably progressive bourgeois movements, which moreover did not
merely exist, but were in the forefront of the
historical process in the leading states of Europe.” (35)
Lenin clarifies the difference ;”
First of all, these were considerations on the national movement (in Germany
and Italy)—on the latter’s development over the heads of the “representatives
of medievalism”; secondly, these were considerations on the
“main evil” of the reactionary monarchies (the
Austrian, the Napoleonic, etc.) in the Concert of Europe. (35)
These considerations are
perfectly clear and indisputable. Marxists have never denied
the progressiveness of bourgeois national-liberation movements against
feudal and absolutist forces… Marx and Engels were working
on the problem of the desirability of success for which
particular bourgeoisie; they were concerned with a modestly liberal
movement developing into a tempestuously democratic one. In
the period of present-day (non-bourgeois) democracy, Potresov is
preaching bourgeois national-liberalism at a time when one cannot even
imagine bourgeois progressive movements, whether modestly liberal or
tempestuously democratic, in Britain, Germany, or France. Marx
and Engels were ahead of their epoch, that of bourgeois-national
progressive movements; they wanted to give an impetus to such
movements so that they might develop “over the heads” of the
representatives of medievalism. (35)
“Marx’s method consists, first of all, in taking due account of the objective content of a historical process at a given moment, in definite and concrete conditions; this in order to realize, in the first place, the movement of which class is the mainspring of the progress possible in those concrete conditions. In 1859, it was not imperialism that comprised the objective content of the historical process in continental Europe, but national-bourgeois movements for liberation.” .. Let us suppose that two countries are at war in the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which country should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day democracy? Obviously, to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its development speedier, and undermine feudalism more decisively.” (35)
Marx’s view and approach to the Tsarist regime as the main focus of reaction and counterrevolution in the world, and had to be fought harder than any other was not his general political line on war and peace but related to the given concrete situation and conditions.
“In the first epoch,”
said Lenin, “ the objective and historical task was to ascertain how,
in its struggle against the chief representatives of a
dying feudalism, the progressive bourgeoisie should “utilize” international
conflicts so as to bring the greatest possible advantage to
the entire democratic bourgeoisie of the world. In the first epoch, over half a
century ago, it was natural and inevitable that the bourgeoisie, enslaved
by feudalism, should wish the defeat of its “own” feudal oppressor,
all the more so that the principal and central feudal strongholds of
all-European importance were not so numerous at the time. This is how Marx
“appraised” the conflicts: he ascertained in which country, in a given
and concrete situation, the success of the bourgeois-liberation
movement was more important in undermining the all-European
feudal stronghold.” (35)
Objectively, the feudal and
dynastic wars were then opposed by revolutionary democratic wars, by wars for
national liberation. This was the content of the historical tasks of
that epoch of Marx and Engels.
First World War – Lenin’s time and his attitude to the war
At the time of 1st
WW, the objective situation in the biggest
advanced states of Europe was different. Capitalism transitioned
from progressive to its reactionary stage of monopoly capitalism. Defining the
difference between the previous epoch and the new, Lenin stated that “
Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that whole
branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts, and
associations of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has
been divided up among the "lords of capital," either in the form of
colonies, or by enmeshing other countries in thousands of threads of financial
exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by the striving
for monopoly, for the seizure of territory for the investment of capital, for
the export of raw materials from them, and so forth. From the liberator of
nations that capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist-capitalism
has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism
has become reactionary” (7)
That transition coined the era of inter-imperialist
reactionary wars to redivide the colonies. Comparing with the previous,
Lenin stated ; “ Today, it would be ridiculous even to imagine a
progressive bourgeoisie, a progressive bourgeois movement, in, for
instance, such key members of the “Concert” of Europe, as Britain and
Germany. The old bourgeois “democracy” of these two key
states has turned reactionary. Potresov has “forgotten” this
and has substituted the standpoint of the old (bourgeois) so-called
democracy for that of present-day (non-bourgeois) democracy.
This shift to the standpoint of another class, and moreover of an
old and outmoded class, is sheer opportunism. There cannot be the
least doubt that a shift like this cannot be justified by an
analysis of the objective content of the historical process in the old
and the new epochs. “ (35)
Lenin’s critique and analysis
which set the attitude towards first WW concluded that “Present-day democracy
will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one nor the other
imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides are
equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie
in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be national-liberal
and have nothing in common with genuine internationalism.” (35) Lenin’s
stance in World War 1 was the “revolutionary defeatism” that
socialists should refuse to support any imperialist camp in
the war, promote working-class struggle, advocate socialist revolution
each within his own belligerent country as the way to win a peace.
“Defeatism” of Lenin was not a passive stand but an active one that
called for revolutionary action.
The change of the epoch from
“the success of which bourgeoisie is more desirable” of Marx
and Engel’s time to “no (imperialist) bourgeoisie is desirable
“ coined the new policy of “revolutionary defeatism ”in
cases of inter-imperialist wars.
Based on his analysis of concrete
situation in that given time and conditions, the “Revolutionary Defeatism”
stance of Lenin worked. “Civil war became a fact” said Lenin , “ The
transformation of the imperialist war into civil war, which we had predicted at
the beginning of the revolution, and even at the beginning of the war… circumstances
in which we found ourselves in October…” (9)
As an important confirmation of
Marxist Dialectics, the “defeatist” stand transformed in to “defencist” stand.
“Yes, we are now defencists” said Lenin. “We have been defencists since
October 25, 1917; we have won the right to defend our native land… it
is a policy of preparation for defense of our country, a steadfast policy, not
allowing a single step to be taken that would aid the extremist
parties of the imperialist powers in the East and West.” (10) Following,
Lenin stated that this “right” to “defend” from the “defeatist” stand
“is not achieved by issuing declarations, but only by overthrowing
the bourgeoisie in one’s own country. In that matter, he stated; “ it would
be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general
rule that would serve in all cases. One must have the brains
to analyze the situation in each separate case.” (11)
Either defeatist,
defencist or (active) neutral stands of Marxist Leninists, they all derive from the fundamental
principle of having the interests of proletariat and of its
struggle in mind when we make an evaluation for the policy and
stand. It is never a narrowminded, mechanical question of which side or more
like which bourgeois will be beneficial to us, it is the question of
where the interests of proletariat lie – not based on abstract
general theories but- based on concrete situation and conditions. Not based on the interest of
one country but calculating the interests of people in general.
“The second epoch is...the
deep contradictions in modern democracy… the cities were attracting ever
more inhabitants, and living conditions in the large cities of the whole world
were being levelled out; capital was becoming internationalized, and at the big
factories townsmen and country-folk, both native and alien, were intermingling.
The class contradictions were growing ever more acute…” “At present” Lenin
said; “ in the third epoch, no feudal fortresses of
all-European significance remain. Of course, it is the task of
present-day democracy to “utilize” conflicts, but—despite
Potresov and Kautsky—this international utilization must be directed, not
against individual national finance capital, but against
international finance capital. The utilization should not be
affected by a class which was on the ascendant fifty or a hundred years ago. At
that time, it was a question of “international action” by the most advanced
bourgeois democracy; today it is another class that is confronted by a similar
task created by history and advanced by the objective state of affairs.” (24)
As a great example to the learned
by rote mistakes of our time which manifest itself with the prescriptive
application of theories to all wars, Lenin
criticizing Rosa said, “The only mistake,..would be... to depart from
the Marxist requirement of concreteness, to apply the appraisal
of this war to all wars possible under
imperialism, to ignore the national movements against imperialism.”..
A national war might be transformed into an imperialist
war and vice versa.”.. “Only a sophist can disregard the difference
between an imperialist and a national war on the grounds that one might develop
into the other. Not infrequently have dialectics served as a bridge to
sophistry. But we remain dialecticians and we combat sophistry not by
denying the possibility of all transformations in general, but by analysing
the given phenomenon in its concrete setting and development…” (8)
Let’s conclude this section with
Lenin’s critique of Plekhanov on a similar issue which is striking and valuable
in this sense and valid for the current.
First World War era was unique
to itself because it was carried out after the era of bourgeois democratic
revolutions in Western European Countries, at a time when capitalism has
transitioned from progressive to its reactionary stage of monopoly capitalism
(imperialism). The war was between the monopoly-capitalist (imperialist) countries.
Let’s refer to Stalin who made
the comparison as he analyzed the 2n WW.
Second World War – Stalin's time and his attitude to the war
"Let us, however, try to replace
sophistry (i.e., the method of clutching at the outward similarity of
instances, without considering the nexus between events) with
dialectics (i.e., the method of studying all the concrete
circumstances of an event and of its development)." (23)
“A distinguishing feature of
the new crisis is that it differs in many respects from the
preceding one, and, moreover, differs for the worse and not for the better.
…the present crisis has broken out not in time of peace, but
at a time when a second imperialist war has already begun.. when
all the other big capitalist powers are beginning to reorganize
themselves on a war footing.” (36)
Stalin was pointing out the
“reorganization of economy on a war footing.” He explained the
difference and said this difference is;
“…as distinct from the preceding
crisis, the present crisis is not a general one, but as yet involves chiefly
the economically powerful countries which have not yet placed
themselves on a war economy basis. As regards the aggressive
countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, who have already reorganized
their economy on a war footing, they, because of the intense development of
their war industry, are not yet experiencing a crisis of overproduction,
although they are approaching it. This means that by the time the economically
powerful, non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the
phase of crisis the aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of
gold and raw material in the course of war fever, are bound to enter a
phase of very severe crisis.” (36)
Stalin’s assessment
strikingly describes the current world situation; as the declining
of aggressive-fascist imperialist US-West heading towards economic crisis, and
non-aggressive imperialist (in its economic sense) those
who are becoming economically powerful yet their economy is not on war-
footing. This is the concrete assessment based on the concrete
conditions and the application of the dialectics of Marxism in determining the
scientific concept of imperialism – both in economic and military
sense.
Stalin continued;
“… It is no longer a question of competition in the markets,
of a commercial war, of dumping. These methods of struggle have long been
recognized as inadequate. It is now a question of a new redivision of
the world, of spheres of influence and colonies, by military
action...the bloc of three aggressive states came to be
formed. A new redivision of the world by means of war became imminent.
After the first imperialist
war the victor states, primarily Britain, France, and the United
States, set up a new regime in the relations between countries, the post-war
peace regime. .. However, three aggressive states, Japan tore up
the Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy the Versailles Treaty, and the new
imperialist war launched by them, upset the entire system of this
post-war peace regime… The new imperialist war became a fact.” (36)
The determination of the type
of war was not different – it was an “imperialist war”
but with distinctions from the previous imperialist war. Stalin evaluated
the character of this distinction with the questions;
“To what are
we attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new
imperialist war?
How is it that the non-aggressive
countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily and
without resistance abandoned their positions and their obligations to
please the aggressors?
Is it to be attributed to the
weakness of the non-aggressive states? Of course not! Combined, the
non-aggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist
states, both economically and militarily.
To what then are we to attribute
the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors?” (36)
Stalin was clearly making
a distinction between the (extremist-bellicose) aggressive imperialists
and non-aggressive imperialists. He explained;
“The chief reason is that
the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly
Britain and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy
of collective resistance to aggressors, and have taken up a position of
non-intervention, a position of "neutrality." (36)
Before the war in his interview Stalin said; “In my opinion there are two seats of war danger. The first is in the Far East, in the zone of Japan. I have in mind the numerous statements made by Japanese military men containing threats against other powers. The second seat is in the zone of Germany. It is hard to say which is the most menacing, but both exist and are active. Compared with these two principal seats of war danger, the Italian-Abyssinian war is an episode. At present, the Far Eastern seat of danger reveals the greatest activity. However, the center of this danger may shift to Europe.” (12)
Three years later in his Report
on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the
C.P.S.U.(B.) Stalin said;
“What changes exactly have
taken place in the international situation in this period? In
what way exactly have the foreign and internal affairs of our country
changed?
For the capitalist countries
this period was one of very profound perturbations in both the
economic and political spheres. In the economic sphere these were years of
depression, followed, from the beginning of the latter half of 1937,
by a period of new economic crisis, of a new decline of industry in the
United States, Great Britain, and France; consequently, these were
years of new economic complications. In the political sphere they were years of
serious political conflicts and perturbations… The entire post-war system, the
so-called peace regime, has been shaken to its foundations.
Let us now examine the concrete
data illustrating the changes in the international situation.
1. New Economic Crisis in the
Capitalist Countries, Intensification of the Struggle for Markets and Sources
of Raw Material, and for a New Redivision of the World.
The economic crisis which
broke out in the capitalist countries in the latter half of 1929 lasted until
the end of 1933. After that the crisis passed into a depression, and was then
followed by a certain revival, a certain upward trend of industry. But this
upward trend of industry did not develop into a boom, as is usually the case in
a period of revival. On the contrary, in the latter half of 1937 a new
economic crisis began which seized the United States first of all and
then England, France and a number of other countries.
The capitalist countries thus
found themselves faced with a new economic crisis before they had even
recovered from the ravages of the recent one.
This circumstance naturally led
to an increase of unemployment. The number of unemployed in capitalist
countries, which had fallen from thirty million in 1933 to fourteen million in
1937, has now again risen to eighteen million as a result of the new economic
crisis. “
In reference to “neutrality,”
“non-intervention” which is so widely used as a ready-made formulas,
Stalin’s explanation was enlightening.
"Let each country defend
itself against the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is
not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their
victims."
But actually speaking, the
policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression,
giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming
the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an
eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious
work. (36)
In 1942, after the alliance is made with
the non-aggressive ones against the aggressive imperialists , Stalin responded
to the question of “What is the Soviet view of the Allied campaign in
Africa?”
The Soviet view of this campaign
is that it represents an outstanding fact of major importance, demonstrating
the growing might of the armed forces of the Allies and opening the prospect of
the disintegration of the Italy-German coalition in the
nearest future.” (37)
Stalin was not shy to
congratulate the victories of her alliances on his telegraphs to
different leaders he stated;
I congratulate you and the
valiant American and British troops on the brilliant victory which has
resulted in the liberation of Bizerta and Tunis from Hitler’s tyranny. I
wish you further successes. (38)
In 1944, Stalin in his Speech at
Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and
Moscow Party and Public Organizations said;
The past year has been a
year of triumph of the common cause of the anti-German coalition for
the sake of which the peoples of the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United
States of America have united in fighting alliance.
The decision of the Teheran
Conference on joint actions against Germany and the brilliant
realization of that decision are one of the striking indications of the
consolidation of the front of the anti-Hitler Coalition. There are few
instances in history of plans for large-scale military operations undertaken in
joint actions against a common enemy being carried out so
fully and with such precision as the plan for a joint blow against Germany
drawn up at the Teheran Conference.
… There is talk of
differences between the three Powers on certain security
problems. Differences do exist, of course, and they will arise
on a number of other issues as well... What matters is not that there
are differences, but that these differences do not transgress the
bounds of what the interests of the unity of the three Great
Powers allow, and that, in the long run, they are resolved in accordance with
the interests of that unity.
To win the war against Germany
is to accomplish a great historic task. But to win the war does
not in itself mean to ensure for the peoples a lasting peace and
guaranteed security in the future. The task is not only to win the war but
also to make new aggression and new war impossible—if not for ever, then at
least for a long time to come.” (41)
Stalin did not have the illusion
that the non-aggressive imperialists will not change its character. His policy
was the policy of “utilizing” the contradictions between the imperialist powers
for the best interests of the proletariat in particular and in general.
Existing conditions and situations required for the duration the task
to be “utilizing” the conflict ,not against all
international finance capital but against individual national finance
capital, whereas before the October Revolution,
during the first world war , it was the other way around.
In his interview of
1946 Stalin says ;
“Mr. Churchill now takes the
stand of the warmongers, and in this Mr. Churchill is not
alone. He has friends not only in Britain but in the United
States of America as well.
A point to be noted is that in
this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a striking resemblance
to Hitler and his friends. Hitler began his work of unleashing war
by proclaiming a race theory, declaring that only German-speaking
people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets out to unleash
war with a race theory, asserting that only English-speaking nations
are superior nations, who are called upon to decide the destinies of the entire
world. Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain and the United States, present
to the non-English speaking nations something in the nature of an
ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will be well;
otherwise, war is inevitable.”… There can be no doubt that
Mr. Churchill’s position is a war position.” (17)
In his 1951 interview
Stalin responds to the question “Do you consider a new world war inevitable?”:
“At least at the present time it cannot
be considered inevitable… these aggressive forces, control the
reactionary governments and direct them. But at the same time, they are afraid
of their people who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance of
peace. Therefore, they are trying to use reactionary governments in
order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the
new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as
aggressive. They are trying to deceive their people in order to impose
on them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war.
Precisely for this reason they
are afraid of the campaign in defense of peace, fearing that it can expose
the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governments.
Peace will be preserved and
consolidated if the people take the cause of preserving peace into
their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may become
inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in
lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war.” (18)
As the First WW started as an
imperialist war, the second WW started as an imperialist war with each had its
distinctive character. Unlike those who claims the second world war was not an
imperialist war, Stalin clearly states;
“the Second World War
began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries.
Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a socialist land, is more
dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist countries; for whereas war
between capitalist countries puts in question only the supremacy of certain
capitalist countries over others, war with the U.S.S.R. must certainly
put in question the existence of capitalism itself. Secondly, because the
capitalists, although they clamor, for "propaganda" purposes, about
the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, do not themselves believe that it is
aggressive, because they are aware of the Soviet Union's peaceful policy and
know that it will not itself attack capitalist countries.
Consequently, the struggle of the
capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their
competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the contradictions
between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.
What guarantee is there, then,
that Germany and Japan will not rise to their feet again, will not attempt to
break out of American bondage and live their own independent lives? I
think there is no such guarantee. But it follows from this
that the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries remains in
force… To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary
to abolish imperialism. (19)
Conclusion of this section
As we see each and every
war, despite its general class context, had different
characters based on the existent condition and situation and
based on the economic and military policy that is followed by
the belligerent countries. As Lenin warned that relying on “the ready-made
conclusions one had acquired, without putting in a
great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding
the facts which he must examine critically, one would
be a very deplorable Communist.” (20)
Using ready-made conclusions and
formulas will force one to sophistry. “By means of patent sophistry, Marxism
is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; everything is
recognised in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of
struggle” (7)
History, without a doubt shows
that the attitude of Marxist Leninists to the wars, from Marx &
Engels to Lenin to Stalin, fundamentally had one thing in mind; the
interests of proletariat and her struggle, and determination of how
to “utilize” these conflicts so that it brings the greatest
possible advantage for them. Not the memorized and sloganized general
theories and ready made conclusions, but the concrete assessment of
concrete situation for the fundamental interests in mind.
As Lenin described years ago that
is fully and precisely relative to todays approach on imperialism, he stated
that “the essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the
politics of imperialism from its economics” . This is
exactly what the learned by rote “theorists” do when they apply the concept of
imperialism to any given country. They are stuck in the “economics” of
imperialism totally divorced from the politics of it.
The crux of the
matter is the conflict between Leninist-Bolshevik theory of the inevitability
of multipolarity due to the law of uneven economic
development and the Kautskyite theory which
argues that the conflicts between the world’s great powers and
empires can be reconciled for a unipolar world order through
global organizations such as the IMF , the World Bank, and the WTO , and
therefore Lenin’s theory of imperialism is outdated.
Kautskyite argument inevitably
aligns with the utopia that “peace is achievable” in
capitalist world order, Lenin’s argument is that war is
inevitable as long as capitalism reigns.
The wars vary in character and
their form so do the stand against the wars vary. There is no ready-made
schema that applies to all wars and the stands to be taken against wars. The
character of the wars during Marx and Engel’s time was different, and the form
of the wars in latter times were different so was the stands against them. The first world war was different in the
sense that all the imperialists countries were ready for war both economically
and politically-militarily. For this war, the task of the revolutionaries were
to utilize the inter-imperialist conflict against all international
finance capital. For the second WW, Stalin’s policy was the policy of “utilizing” the
contradictions between the imperialist powers for the best interests of the
proletariat in particular and in general. Existing conditions and
situations required for the duration the task to be “utilizing” the conflict, not against all international
finance capital but against individual national finance capital.
Imperialism means monopolization
and the dominance of finance capital not only domestically but
internationally. Imperialism means deindustrialization of
the economy while the industrialization of military take
over and the economy is switched to be shaped on war footing. Imperialism
means that its interests are in line with instability ,
conflicts and wars, because imperialism means war, aggressive
imperialists in its full meaning of the concept, seek war .
“This is why in our times, when
economic conflicts have reached an unusual degree of intensity, we are
witnessing a mad orgy of armaments. Thus the rule of
finance capital implies both; imperialism (in its economic sense
E.A) and militarism (in its political sense E.A) . In
this sense militarism is no less a typical historic phenomenon
than finance capital itself… even where there are relatively
equal economic structures..” (40)
Thus, Imperialism and war
are inseparable twins. That is why the issue of “imperialism” and
attitude to it, cannot be studied independently from its political
aspect- that is (militarization of industry and) war-
in each given concrete condition and situation. Lenin was saying that “Abstract
theoretical reasoning may lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has
arrived .. by abandoning Marxism. It goes without saying that there can be
no concrete historical assessment of war, unless it is based on a thorough analysis
of the nature of imperialism, both in its economic and
political aspects.” (1) Connecting the two, Lenin points out
that “The character of a war and its success depend chiefly upon the
internal regime of the country that goes to war, that war is a
reflection of the internal policy conducted by the given country before
the war. “ (5)
This is a common practice
of chauvinists and ultra-imperialists which is
unconsciously followed by the sincere
leftists. Imperialists and their mouth pieces, most
often penetrating into Marxist Leninist left, through the
application of “entrism” tactics once proposed by Trotsky, do invent, initiate,
and disseminate the theories that fits the interests of bourgeoisie.
They reduce the theory of imperialism to rivalries,
competition of the known imperialist powers in order to deflect the
attention from the aggressive , fascist imperialist power they
defend. In most cases, historically this reflects itself in learned by
rote theories and ready made schemes that puts all the monopoly-capitalist
(imperialist in economic sense) countries in the same basket with the
militarized, aggressive and warmongering monopolist countries that fits the
scientific definition of imperialism. It is the most fashionable
alternative to the Leninist analytical framework of a modern version
of Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism, the world-system theory, which
avoids the economic, political, and ultimately military power that
each monopoly capitalist group can leverage in the process of dividing the
world into "center," "semi-periphery," and
"periphery." They defend unipolar world order and disregard the
concrete assessment of where the interests of each lie; "consumer or
producer" and thus, "war or peace" in that specific given
time.
General Conclusion
Paying attention to Lenin’s
description which leaves no room for misunderstanding; “Economically, imperialism (or
the “era” of finance capital—it is not a matter of words) is the
highest stage in the development of capitalism, one in which
production has assumed such big, immense proportions that free competition
gives way to monopoly. That is the economic essence of
imperialism.” (44)
Lenin, who always reminds the
study of preceding internal policy of a
country for any assessment states that “the
political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly capitalism
(imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the change from democracy to political
reaction. Democracy corresponds to free competition. Political reaction
corresponds to monopoly. “Finance capital strives for domination, not
freedom…,It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific, to
single out “foreign policy” from policy in general, let
alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy. Both in foreign and
home policy imperialism strives towards violations of democracy, towards
reaction. In this sense imperialism is indisputably the “negation” of democracy
in general.” (44)
Does this explanation leave
any room to comprehend the fact that there is at least one other
essence of imperialism? Unless one is
not sincere and serious about Marxism Leninism, it is very clear that those
words does not leave any room for misunderstanding. Lenin , with the same
clarity stated “needless to say that there can be no concrete
historical analysis of war, if that analysis does not have for its
basis a full understanding of the nature of imperialism, both
from its economic and political aspects. Without
this, it is impossible to approach an understanding of the
economic and diplomatic situation of the last decades, and without such an
understanding, it is ridiculous even to speak of forming a correct view
on war. (2)
It is clear that to define
“imperialism” in its scientific meaning, one has to analyze, observe and make
the dialectical connections between the economic and political
aspects of imperialism. This connection has to be made based on the existing
concrete conditions and situations not based on the assumptions or
possibilities like ; “it is a monopoly capitalist country so it is imperialist
regardless of having a military industry or not”. This argument is an infantile one made mostly
by those who learn by rote and have no clue on the necessity of the application
of Marxist dialectics to general theories. One country may have monopoly
capitalism but may not be an actual
imperialist (yet). However, as an exception, another country who does not have monopoly
capitalism, or not be a highly industrialized economy but may have a strong military and actively
expansionist, may be an actual imperialist one. Most European countries, some
Latin American, Asian countries have monopolies and export capital; should we
call all them imperialist in its scientific meaning? No, we cannot. Turkiye is
almost a deindustrialized country with highly developed military industry with
military presence in a number countries
and actual invasion of Syria. That makes Turkiye an imperialist country not
because it is a monopoly capitalist one.
Lenin pointed out
that “““The problem of imperialism is not only a most
essential one, but, we may say it is the most essential problem
in that realm of economic science”. (2) That is why it is important to be
objective and make the necessary concrete analysis before we reach a conclusion
on arbitrarily applying the term to a country. Because “ we remain
dialecticians and we combat sophistry … by analyzing the given
phenomenon in its concrete setting and development…” (8)
Leninist theories are not
prescriptions or ready-made schemes to apply arbitrarily, because “Marxist
dialectical method forbids the employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract
formulas, but demands the thorough, detailed analysis of a
process in all its concreteness, basing its conclusions only on such
an analysis. “ (42) Marxists do not proceed from the generalized
theories to assessment of a given situation which renders subjectivity
and arbitrariness but proceed from the assessment of concrete situation
to the application of theories. Distinguishing the Bolsheviks from the rest,
” Marx”, says Lenin, "... speaks only of the concrete
situation; Plekhanov draws a general conclusion without
at all considering the question in its concreteness.” (43)
This concreteness rather than
applying schemes based on learned by rote and memorized theories without any
analysis distinguishes the Bolsheviks from the rest. Lenin said that "If
a Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because
of the ready-made conclusions he had acquired, without putting
in a great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which
he must examine critically, he would be a very deplorable
Communist." (27)
As in all cases, in the case of
“imperialism” It is the responsibility
and duty of Leninists to consider all the aspects and dialectical connections
in order to define and apply the concept of imperialism to any given
country. Both the practices that
make up the essence of an imperialist economic policy and the
essence of an imperialist political policy should be considered and should
be applicable to a given country before labeling that country as
“imperialist” in its scientific meaning.
In addition, as Stalin has
explained, it is crucially important to
make analysis of whether a country’s posturing is aggressive or defensive.
As we have read through Stalin’s approach, this analysis first and foremost
depends on our concluded determination on the question of “where their
interests lie”; war or peace at that given concrete situation.
From all of the above, one can
deduce the synopsis of the scientific definition of imperialism as;
1) Monopolization of all major industries under the dominance
of finance capital
2) Formation of state
capitalism in order to consolidate all the other major state
institutions
3) Export of
capital and monopolization and control of major international
financial institutions and international transactions in any shape and form.
4) Deindustrialization of
economy through shifting production to other countries for cheap labor.
5) In order to protect
their international monopoly of the financial institutions and their exported
capital, their investments, militarization of industry and
developing its economy on war-footing - not defensive but
aggressive- offensive character.
6) Turning the
industrialized, producer country in to a consumer country
which heavily depends on the "producer" and on the earth mineral rich
countries for its needs in general and military industry and technology
industry in particular in return which inevitably forces the country to have an aggressive
posturing rather than a defensive posturing on
international arena.
7) That translates in to exporting military means and men to
the other countries on a permanent basis in order to subjugate
any country that may take action against its interests.
In simple words, and proceeding
from the principle that "Marxist must proceed not from what is
possible, but from what is real" (33) branding of a country
as "imperialist " in its scientific meaning should be made
based on the concrete realities of that given time with the answer to the
questions of ;
1) whether the
country is a producer or consumer, 2) whether
the interests of that given country is aligned with war or peace,
3) whether the country has a military industry and the economy
of which is built on war-footing for subjugating the others. 4)
whether It has a military aggressive posture or defensive
posture. Lacking any of these characters at that given time, a
country cannot be branded as "imperialist" in its scientific
meaning without differentiation.
Proceeding from learned by rote theories and ready made schemes will end up
with anti-Leninist conclusions on any given subject especially when the
concept of imperialism is applied arbitrarily.
The question of inter-imperialist
wars is another subject yet one can draw a conclusion from Lenin and Stalin’s
assessments above. Let’s for now keep in
mind Lenin’s assessment that “ if we are not giving any chance for sincere negotiations and the war is forced upon us,
that war is a just war.” Obviously he was not talking about Soviets because any
war of Soviets would be a just war. He was talking in general.
Erdogan A.
2022- August 2025
Attachments
How
the imperialist wars in our technologic era differs in their forms?
Based
on the scientific concept of imperialism, Is China an imperialist country?
Notes
* Lenin, Preface to N.
Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the World Economy
(1) Lenin, Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism
(2) Stalin, 7th Extended Plenary
Session of the ICCI
(3) Bukharin, Imperialism and
World Economy
(4) Lenin, “The Impending
Catastrophe and How to Combat It”
(5) Lenin, Address To The Second
All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
(6) Lenin, Bellicose Militarism,
and the Anti-Militarist Tactics of Social-Democracy
(7) Lenin, Socialism and War
(8) Lenin, Junius Pamphlet
(9) Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh
Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
(10) Lenin, Report On Foreign
Policy
(11) Lenin, Left-wing Communism, an
Infantile Disorder. No Compromises?
(12) Stalin, Interview Roy
Howard, March 1, 1936
(13) Stalin, Report on the Work
of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(14) Stalin, The Allied Campaign
in Africa Answers to Associated Press Moscow Correspondent
(15) Stalin, To President
Roosevelt
(16) Stalin, Speech at
Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and
Moscow Party and Public Organizations
(17) Stalin, Interview to
“Pravda” Correspondent Concerning Mr. Winston Churchill’s Speech at Fulton,
March 1946
(18) Stalin, interview with
correspondent of Pravda, February 16, 1951
(19) Stalin, Economic Problems of
the USSR, 1951
(20) Lenin, The Tasks of the
Youth Leagues
(21) Lenin, The Proletarian
Revolution, and the Renegade Kautsky
(22) Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s
Book Lectures On the History of Philosophy, 1915
(23) Lenin, The Russian Brand of
Südekum, February 1, 1915
(24) Lenin, Speech At A Meeting
In Butyrsky District
(25) Stalin, On the results of
the July Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of
Bolsheviks
(26) Stalin, 7" Extended
Plenary Session of the ICCI
(27) Lenin, The Tasks of the
Youth Leagues
(28) Bukharin, Toward a Theory of
the Imperialist State
(29) Lenin, Address To The Second
All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
(30) Lenin, Lecture on the
Proletariat, and War
(31) Basic Economic Law of
Monopoly Capitalism, 1954
(32) A. Koh, Finance capital,
Imperialism and War 1927
(33) Lenin, Letters on Tactics
(34) E. Varga, Economic causes
and consequences of the World War
(35) Lenin, Under false flag
(36) Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central
Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(37) Stalin, The Allied Campaign
in Africa Answers to Associated Press Moscow Correspondent
(38) Stalin, To President
Roosevelt
(39) Stalin, Speech at
Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and
Moscow Party and Public Organizations
(40) Bukharin, Means of
Competitive Struggle, and State Power
(41) Stalin, The Question of Peace, and Security
(42) Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare
(43) Lenin, Plekhanov's Reference to History
(44) Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and
Imperialist Economism - What Is Economic Analysis?
(45) Lenin, The Attitude of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Towards the War
.jpg)
