Imperialism as Capitalism
Imperialism as Capitalism
The classical Marxists perceived capitalism as the most exploitative strategy, which was being used by the owners of the factors of production to exploit the proletariats. They had a main argument that the working class would join and overthrow the owners of factors of production to form a socialist society. Lenin’s contribution through the theories of imperialism explains the stages of capitalism arguing that it is illogical that revolution could just occur; however, the stage of imperialism provided the main resolution of Marxist theory crisis. In economic terms, Lenin explores the biggest world power of that time which was seen to be in imperial stage of capitalism and discovers the distinction they have. Therefore, he concluded that the countries which are less developed, are basically sitting ducks for other developed countries. Lenin writes this pamphlet in order to persuade Russian citizens that the world will eventually come to a socialist reform when the system of capitalism eventually fails unable to be repaired by its separating nations.
Kautsky viewed capitalism having developed from a point where the level of production, enhanced by specialization, has gone higher to form monopolies, which have taken control of the economy. Due to this control, the bank capital merges with these monopolies in order to form financial capital. In order to expand financial capital, the monopolist expands their market share and establishes an export of commodities where they gain an exceptional international monopolist influence. In this case they form territorial boundaries, based on their capitalist power, which Kautsky referred to as the imperialism. Therefore, he refers imperialism as the main product of highly developed industrial capitalism. This forms the base stage of the exploitation of some countries as argued by Marx.
Lenin was highly inspired in his writing by the wave of colonization which had taken the momentum in mid-1917, the recession in the economy, and the impacts of the war on less developed countries. Imperialism, therefore, is a striving for annexation, which enhances the use of colonial policy to the extent a superpower can extend its influence on financial capital. Kautsky stated that the annexation could not discriminate between the agrarian territories and the highly industrialized regions. This is because, though there was initial partition of the world, more powers rose demanding re-division in order to reach out for all kind of territory; also, the competition increased between several great powers in striving for hegemony. Lenin uses this view by Kautsky to show the swings in the Marxist economy and how insufficient it has been serving the economy due to a lot of capitalist breakdown experienced. From the tradition to contemporary economists, depressions and recessions have been seen to mark the end of capitalism, which instead seems to recover after the swings.
There were some belief’s that capitalism is progressive and inevitable and so is imperialism and therefore, all countries need to learn how to live in such a society and everyone needs to work to win the best class in the society. Most of the capitalists’ argued that in Russia, capitalism is inevitable so they ought to open a tavern and begin to implant capitalism. However, Kautsky did not agree with their view; he responded that imperialism does not represent modern capitalism but it is a modern policy to fight annexation around the globe. Regardless of these controversies, Lenin on his side is supporting Kautsky arguing that even if capitalism seems to survive all conditions in the economy, it will not remain progressive since after every swing in the economy, a new stage of imperialism arose depending on the change of class. This seems to give resolution to the first crisis of Marxism.
The view of contemporary economists was criticized since most of the countries that were so powerful during the world war were boosted economically by recovery that took place after 1896. For instance, Germany enjoyed uninterrupted economic progress until 1913, which was characterized by increased financial capital and annexation, a fact that concurs with the McDonough of capitalism recovery even after recession. The recovery of the capitalist has therefore raised many questions on how recession can end capitalism. During this controversy, the orthodox Marxist argued that these crises will continue until capitalism fails. However, this was not the view of Bernstein. He argued that there is increased economic knowledge which would give solution to all economic problems (Bernstein, 87). On the political side, he saw that democracy would give every individual a chance to choose the best leaders in order to end the exploitation; that is, the government will not be bipartisan when handling its roles.
In support of the Marxist view of revolution, Kautsky argued that revolution does not need economic breakdown for it to occur. In the theory of “economic depression”, he argued that even if the existence of capitalism remains possible, it is still intolerable by the masses (Sweezy, 198). Even if democracy is practiced in most countries, as democracy rises, so is the power of bourgeoisies. This means that there is an increased concentration of capital and gigantic monopolies which grow simultaneously with growth of unions (Kautsky, 82). This means that there is nothing like the gradual road to socialism since capitalism still develops with changes in political field.
Based on these views, Lenin concurs with them and stated that there is a distinction between the old and the contemporary capitalism. He perceives imperialism as a stage of capitalism characterized by dominance of monopolies and finance capital; where export has acquired pronounced importance; leading to division of the world among the international trusts; where the division of all territories of the globe among the capitalist power has been completed (Lenin, 232). In attempt to establish when imperialism started, Lenin, using these features, locates the turning point of monopoly dominance at the beginning of nineteenth century during the boom when cartels became the base of the whole economic life. It is in these terms that capitalism was transformed to imperialism (Lenin, 181). The cartels intensified the concentration of industry and banking making the monopolist more active than before. However, this happened randomly and in different paces between countries making the partition of the world dominated by some superpowers as others gets dominated; this supported Marxism.
Lenin relates the monopoly power with the financial capital and argues that as there is dynamics in the financial capital, there are developments of dynamics in the monopoly accumulation, which is winning power for countries under imperialism. According to the monopoly capital school the relationship between the monopoly capital and labor is seen to be in process of change in decades to come meaning that it is not necessarily that capitalism persists. Inspired by Lenin, the new Marxist argued that there would be no logic saying that there would be stagnation in the economy since after every swing of the economy there is always a renewed expansion in the future; therefore, there will be progressive changes, which may result to socialism (Lenin, 82).
The development of what Mandel termed as “late capitalism” does not suggest that imperialism has changed in a way that imperialism would be considered to be void. Lenin’s account of imperialism was developed on the basis of capital which was, in general terms, the governing law of the Marxist theory; this means that, the revolution that was proposed by Marx in his theory, to give rise of socialism still remains. The attempt to give Marxist a new face of late capitalism is still based on Lenin’s study of imperialism therefore; it is just a mere development of imperialist, monopoly-capitalist epoch (Lenin, 9). Though Uno seems to differ with Lenin and Hilferding’s argument about imperialism, he accepts that recessions may trigger revolution due to social impacts that capitalism has on the working class that may pave way to socialism.
We confirm the thesis that Lenin’s pamphlet persuades Russian citizens that the world will eventually come to a socialist reform when the system of capitalism fails to a point where it will be impossible to repair it. The countries that are in an imperial stage of capitalism are still gaining momentum in both political and social fields, and they may not be patient with what they perceive to be injustice from the dominant powers in the world. In addition, capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the colonies and in the overseas countries where new imperialists are emerging such as Japan making the imperialism battle more acute. The growing imperialism, which according to Lenin is the stage of capitalism, means that capitalism will not last long.
The classical Marxists perceived capitalism as the most exploitative strategy, which was being used by the owners of the factors of production to exploit the proletariats. They had a main argument that the working class would join and overthrow the owners of factors of production to form a socialist society. Lenin’s contribution through the theories of imperialism explains the stages of capitalism arguing that it is illogical that revolution could just occur; however, the stage of imperialism provided the main resolution of Marxist theory crisis. In economic terms, Lenin explores the biggest world power of that time which was seen to be in imperial stage of capitalism and discovers the distinction they have. Therefore, he concluded that the countries which are less developed, are basically sitting ducks for other developed countries. Lenin writes this pamphlet in order to persuade Russian citizens that the world will eventually come to a socialist reform when the system of capitalism eventually fails unable to be repaired by its separating nations.
Kautsky viewed capitalism having developed from a point where the level of production, enhanced by specialization, has gone higher to form monopolies, which have taken control of the economy. Due to this control, the bank capital merges with these monopolies in order to form financial capital. In order to expand financial capital, the monopolist expands their market share and establishes an export of commodities where they gain an exceptional international monopolist influence. In this case they form territorial boundaries, based on their capitalist power, which Kautsky referred to as the imperialism. Therefore, he refers imperialism as the main product of highly developed industrial capitalism. This forms the base stage of the exploitation of some countries as argued by Marx.
Lenin was highly inspired in his writing by the wave of colonization which had taken the momentum in mid-1917, the recession in the economy, and the impacts of the war on less developed countries. Imperialism, therefore, is a striving for annexation, which enhances the use of colonial policy to the extent a superpower can extend its influence on financial capital. Kautsky stated that the annexation could not discriminate between the agrarian territories and the highly industrialized regions. This is because, though there was initial partition of the world, more powers rose demanding re-division in order to reach out for all kind of territory; also, the competition increased between several great powers in striving for hegemony. Lenin uses this view by Kautsky to show the swings in the Marxist economy and how insufficient it has been serving the economy due to a lot of capitalist breakdown experienced. From the tradition to contemporary economists, depressions and recessions have been seen to mark the end of capitalism, which instead seems to recover after the swings.
There were some belief’s that capitalism is progressive and inevitable and so is imperialism and therefore, all countries need to learn how to live in such a society and everyone needs to work to win the best class in the society. Most of the capitalists’ argued that in Russia, capitalism is inevitable so they ought to open a tavern and begin to implant capitalism. However, Kautsky did not agree with their view; he responded that imperialism does not represent modern capitalism but it is a modern policy to fight annexation around the globe. Regardless of these controversies, Lenin on his side is supporting Kautsky arguing that even if capitalism seems to survive all conditions in the economy, it will not remain progressive since after every swing in the economy, a new stage of imperialism arose depending on the change of class. This seems to give resolution to the first crisis of Marxism.
The view of contemporary economists was criticized since most of the countries that were so powerful during the world war were boosted economically by recovery that took place after 1896. For instance, Germany enjoyed uninterrupted economic progress until 1913, which was characterized by increased financial capital and annexation, a fact that concurs with the McDonough of capitalism recovery even after recession. The recovery of the capitalist has therefore raised many questions on how recession can end capitalism. During this controversy, the orthodox Marxist argued that these crises will continue until capitalism fails. However, this was not the view of Bernstein. He argued that there is increased economic knowledge which would give solution to all economic problems (Bernstein, 87). On the political side, he saw that democracy would give every individual a chance to choose the best leaders in order to end the exploitation; that is, the government will not be bipartisan when handling its roles.
In support of the Marxist view of revolution, Kautsky argued that revolution does not need economic breakdown for it to occur. In the theory of “economic depression”, he argued that even if the existence of capitalism remains possible, it is still intolerable by the masses (Sweezy, 198). Even if democracy is practiced in most countries, as democracy rises, so is the power of bourgeoisies. This means that there is an increased concentration of capital and gigantic monopolies which grow simultaneously with growth of unions (Kautsky, 82). This means that there is nothing like the gradual road to socialism since capitalism still develops with changes in political field.
Based on these views, Lenin concurs with them and stated that there is a distinction between the old and the contemporary capitalism. He perceives imperialism as a stage of capitalism characterized by dominance of monopolies and finance capital; where export has acquired pronounced importance; leading to division of the world among the international trusts; where the division of all territories of the globe among the capitalist power has been completed (Lenin, 232). In attempt to establish when imperialism started, Lenin, using these features, locates the turning point of monopoly dominance at the beginning of nineteenth century during the boom when cartels became the base of the whole economic life. It is in these terms that capitalism was transformed to imperialism (Lenin, 181). The cartels intensified the concentration of industry and banking making the monopolist more active than before. However, this happened randomly and in different paces between countries making the partition of the world dominated by some superpowers as others gets dominated; this supported Marxism.
Lenin relates the monopoly power with the financial capital and argues that as there is dynamics in the financial capital, there are developments of dynamics in the monopoly accumulation, which is winning power for countries under imperialism. According to the monopoly capital school the relationship between the monopoly capital and labor is seen to be in process of change in decades to come meaning that it is not necessarily that capitalism persists. Inspired by Lenin, the new Marxist argued that there would be no logic saying that there would be stagnation in the economy since after every swing of the economy there is always a renewed expansion in the future; therefore, there will be progressive changes, which may result to socialism (Lenin, 82).
The development of what Mandel termed as “late capitalism” does not suggest that imperialism has changed in a way that imperialism would be considered to be void. Lenin’s account of imperialism was developed on the basis of capital which was, in general terms, the governing law of the Marxist theory; this means that, the revolution that was proposed by Marx in his theory, to give rise of socialism still remains. The attempt to give Marxist a new face of late capitalism is still based on Lenin’s study of imperialism therefore; it is just a mere development of imperialist, monopoly-capitalist epoch (Lenin, 9). Though Uno seems to differ with Lenin and Hilferding’s argument about imperialism, he accepts that recessions may trigger revolution due to social impacts that capitalism has on the working class that may pave way to socialism.
We confirm the thesis that Lenin’s pamphlet persuades Russian citizens that the world will eventually come to a socialist reform when the system of capitalism fails to a point where it will be impossible to repair it. The countries that are in an imperial stage of capitalism are still gaining momentum in both political and social fields, and they may not be patient with what they perceive to be injustice from the dominant powers in the world. In addition, capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the colonies and in the overseas countries where new imperialists are emerging such as Japan making the imperialism battle more acute. The growing imperialism, which according to Lenin is the stage of capitalism, means that capitalism will not last long.
Bibliography:
Primary Source:
Lenin, Vladimir. “Imperialism, as a Special Stage of Capitalism.” Marxist Internet Archive (website). Tim Delaney and Kevin Goins. mid-1917, re-published on Lenin Internet Archive 2005. Web. 13 March 2013.<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm.>
Online text taken from: Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp.667-766.
Secondary Source:
McDonough, Terrence. “Lenin, Imperialism, and the Stages of Capitalist Development.” Science and Society 59.3 (Fall 1995): 339.
Primary Source:
Lenin, Vladimir. “Imperialism, as a Special Stage of Capitalism.” Marxist Internet Archive (website). Tim Delaney and Kevin Goins. mid-1917, re-published on Lenin Internet Archive 2005. Web. 13 March 2013.<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm.>
Online text taken from: Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp.667-766.
Secondary Source:
McDonough, Terrence. “Lenin, Imperialism, and the Stages of Capitalist Development.” Science and Society 59.3 (Fall 1995): 339.
"Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism"
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin wrote "Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism" as a section among others as part of a pamphlet written in support of Marxism. Lenin wrote the pamphlet in 1916 and it was published in mid-1917. In this document Lenin Recognizes imperialism as a special stage of the development of capitalism. Lenin expresses an argument about Karl Kautsky, the principle Marxist theoritician of the epoch of what is referred to as the Second International-years between 1889-1914. While Lenin views imperialism as a special stage, Kautsky views it as a policy by finance capitol. Lenin wrote this pamphlet in order to persuade Russian citizens to start a socialist revolution and overthrow their Czar. He argued that capitalism will eventually fail, unable to be repaired. Lenin views imperialism as a constant striving for annexations as well as a striving for violence and reaction. The document was written after World War 1 when Lenin returned back to Russia. The country was running out of money and the people were starving and on the streets. Marxism at that time sounded like it was what was best for everyone.
Excerpt: "We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up." -Lenin
Excerpt: "We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up." -Lenin
Significance of Excerpt: This excerpt contains the first two paragraphs in the pamphlet outlining the section and what is to be discussed. Lenin views imperialism as being the high stage of capitalism, which eliminates free competition with a capitalist monopoly, meaning the money is concentrated into cartels, syndicates, trusts, and banks, in other words private industry. This is referred to by Lenin as the "monopoly stage" of capitalism. Colonial policy has been extended to territories that have not been conquered by this capitalist power which is dividing the world up based on monopolistic possession of each nation.
Multimedia Gallery
This picture shows communism as a world power, or as one state. When Lenin talks about free competition turning into capitalist monopoly he means that all of the money is concentrated into private industries. With communism all of the money is concentrated into the hands of the state, making the state economically as a whole, a monopoly. The state will hold all of the Wealth.
This picture defines imperialism very well. Here we see several European nations colonizing the undeveloped continent of Africa. The goal is to take control of the land and resources so that it can benefit the mother country as a whole. This is a strive for annexations to build the state into an empire both physically and economically. In short it is about who can get the biggest slice of Africa.
This is a picture of Lenin leading the Bolsheviks. People did eventually seem to understand Lenin's pamphlet. People were soon fed up with the Czar and the Bolsheviks had taken over. Russia had now become the first communist state known as the Soviet Union.
When Lenin talks about free competition being turned into a capitalist monopoly he means that all of the money goes into the hands of the owners of large scale industry and is not being spread amongst the population. This takes away free competition. His goal was to eliminate class by spreading the wealth evenly amongst the population.