Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM
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 bee completely divided up.But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features
of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves,and
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.We shall see later that imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts—to which the above definition is limited—but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the workingclass movement. The thing to be noted at this point is that imperialism, as interpreted above, undoubtedly represents a special stage in the development of capitalism. To enable the reader to obtain the most wellgrounded idea of imperialism, I deliberately tried to quote as extensively as possible bourgeois economists who have to admit the particularly incontrovertible facts concerning the latest stage of capitalist economy. With the same object in view, I have quoted detailed statistics which enable one to see to what degree bank capital, etc., has grown, in what precisely the transformation of quantity into quality, of developed capitalism into imperialism, was expressed. Needless to say, of course, all boundaries in nature and in society are conventional and changeable, and it would be absurd to argue, for example, about the particular year or decade in which imperialism “definitely” became established.In the matter of defining imperialism, however, we have to enter into controversy, primarily, with Karl Kautsky, the principal Marxist theoretician of the epoch of the so-called Second International—that is, of the twenty-five years between 1889 and 1914. The fundamental ideas expressed in our definition of imperialism were very resolutely attacked by Kautsky in 1915, and even in November 1914, when he said
that imperialism must not be regarded as a “phase” or stage of economy, but as a policy, a definite policy “preferred” by finance capital; that imperialism must not be “identified” with“present-day capitalism”; that if imperialism is to be understood to mean “all the phenomena of present-day capitalism”—cartels, protection, the domination of the financiers, and colonial policy—then the question as to whether imperialism is necessary to capitalism becomes reduced to the “flattest tautology”, because, in that case,“imperialism is naturally a vital necessity for capitalism”, and so on. The best way to present Kautsky’s idea is to quote his
own definition of imperialism, which is diametrically opposed to the substance of the ideas which I have set forth (for the objections coming from the camp of the German Marxists,
who have been advocating similar ideas for many years already, have been long known to Kautsky as the objections of a definite trend in Marxism).Kautsky’s definition is as follows:
“Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex all large areas of agrarian[Kautsky’s italics] territory, irrespective of what nations inhabit it.” [1]
This definition is of no use at all because it one-sidedly, i.e.,arbitrarily, singles out only the national question (although the latter is extremely important in itself as well as in its relation to imperialism), it arbitrarily and inaccurately connects this question only with industrial capital in the countries which
annex other nations, and in an equally arbitrary and inaccurate manner pushes into the forefront the annexation of agrarian regions.
Imperialism is a striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in
general, a striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment, however, we are interested in the economic aspect of the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into his
definition. The inaccuracies in Kautsky’s definition are glaring. The characteristic feature of imperialism is not
industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial capital, that
from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy. The
characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialised regions (German appetite for Belgium; French
appetite for Lorraine), because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges those contemplating a redivision to reach out for every kind of territory, and (2) an essential
feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves as to weaken the adversary and undermine his hegemony. (Belgium is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations against Britain; Britain needs Baghdad as a base for operations against Germany, etc.) Kautsky refers especially—and repeatedly—to English writers who, lie alleges, have given a purely political meaning to the word “imperialism” in the sense that he, Kautsky, understands it. We take up the work by the English writer Hobson, Imperialism, which appeared in 1902, and there we read:
“The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests.” [2]
We see that Kautsky is absolutely wrong in referring to English writers generally (unless lie meant the vulgar English imperialists, or the avowed apologists for imperialism). We see that Kautsky, while claiming that he continues to advocate Marxism, as a matter of fact takes a step backward compared with the social-liberal Hobson, who more correctly takes into account two “historically concrete” (Kautsky’s definition is a
mockery of historical concreteness!) features of modern imperialism:
(1) the competition between several imperialisms, and
(2) the predominance of the financier over the merchant. If it is chiefly a question of
the annexation of agrarian countries by industrial countries, then the role of the merchant is put in the forefront.Kautsky’s definition is not only wrong and un-Marxist. It serves as a basis for a whole system of views which signify a rupture with Marxist theory and Marxist practice all along the line. I shall refer to this later. The argument about words which Kautsky raises as to whether the latest stage of capitalism should be called imperialism or the stage of finance capital is not worth serious attention. Call it what you will, it makes no difference. The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy “preferred” by finance capital,
and opposes to it another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent, non-annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes the basis of the present
peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a non-imperialist policy. The result is a slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.
Kautsky enters into controversy with the German apologist of imperialism and annexations, Cunow, who clumsily and cynically argues that imperialism is present-day capitalism;
the development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive; therefore imperialism is progressive; therefore, we should grovel before it and glorify it! This is something like the caricature of the Russian Marxists which the Narodniks drew in 1894-95. They argued: if the Marxists believe that capitalism is inevitable in Russia, that it is progressive, then they ought to open a tavern and begin to implant capitalism! Kautsky’s reply to Cunow is as follows: imperialism is not present-day capitalism; it is only one of the forms of the policy
of present-day capitalism. This policy we can and should fight, fight imperialism, annexations, etc.
The reply seems quite plausible, but in effect it is a more subtle and more disguised (and therefore more dangerous) advocacy of conciliation with imperialism, because a “fight” against the policy of the trusts and banks that does not affect the economic basis of the trusts and banks is mere bourgeois
reformism and pacifism, the benevolent and innocent expression of pious wishes. Evasion of existing
contradictions, forgetting the most important of them, instead of revealing their full depth—such is Kautsky’s theory, which has nothing in common with Marxism. Naturally, such a “theory” can only serve the purpose of advocating unity with the Cunows!
“From the purely economic point of view,” writes Kautsky, “it is not impossible that capitalism will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism,”
[3] i.e., of a superimperialism, of a union of the imperialisms of the whole world and not struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under capitalism, a phase of “the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital”.
[4] We shall have to deal with this “theory of ultra-imperialism”
later on in order to show in detail how decisively and
completely it breaks with Marxism. At present, in keeping
with the general plan of the present work, we must examine
the exact economic data on this question. “From the purely
economic point of view”, is “ultra-imperialism” possible, or is
it ultra-nonsense?
If the purely economic point of view is meant to be a “pure”
abstraction, then all that can be said reduces itself to the
following proposition: development is proceeding towards
monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly, towards
a single world trust. This is indisputable, but it is also as
completely meaningless as is the statement that “development
is proceeding” towards the manufacture of foodstuffs in
laboratories. In this sense the “theory” of ultra-imperialism is
no less absurd than a “theory of ultra-agriculture” would be.
If, however, we are discussing the “purely economic”
conditions of the epoch of finance capital as a historically
concrete epoch which began at the turn of the
twentieth century, then the best reply that one can make to the
lifeless abstractions of “ultraimperialism” (which serve
exclusively a most reactionary aim: that of diverting attention
from the depth of existing antagonisms) is to contrast them
with the concrete economic realities of the present-day world
economy. Kautsky’s utterly meaningless talk about ultraimperialism
encourages, among other things, that profoundly
mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the
apologists of imperialism, i.e., that the rule of finance
capital lessens the unevenness and contradictions inherent in
the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them.
R. Calwer, in his little book, An Introduction to the World
Economy, [5] made an attempt to summarise the main, purely
economic, data that enable one to obtain a concrete picture of
the internal relations of the world economy at the turn of the
twentieth century. He divides the world into five “main
economic areas”, as follows: (1) Central Europe (the whole of
Europe with the exception of Russia and Great Britain); (2)
Great Britain; (3) Russia; (4) Eastern Asia; (5) America; he
includes the colonies in the “areas” of the states to which they
belong and “leaves aside” a few countries not distributed
according to areas, such as Persia, Afghanistan, and Arabia in
Asia, Morocco and Abyssinia in Africa, etc.
Here is a brief summary of the economic data he quotes on
these regions.
the Central European, the British and the American areas.
Among these are three states which dominate the world:
Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. Imperialist
rivalry and the struggle between these countries have become
extremely keen because Germany has only an insignificant
area and few colonies; the creation of “Central Europe” is still
a matter for the future, it is being born in the midst of a
desperate struggle. For the moment the distinctive feature of
the whole of Europe is political disunity. In the British and
American areas, on the other hand, political concentration is
very highly developed, but there is a vast disparity between
the immense colonies of the one and the insignificant colonies
of the other. In the colonies, however, capitalism is only
beginning to develop. The struggle for South America is
becoming more and more acute.
There are two areas where capitalism is little developed:
Russia and Eastern Asia. In the former, the population is
extremely sparse, in the latter it is extremely dense; in the
former political concentration is high, in the latter it does not
exist. The partitioning of China is only just beginning, and the
struggle for it between Japan, the U.S., etc., is continually
gaining in intensity.
Compare this reality—the vast diversity of economic and
political conditions, the extreme disparity in the rate of
development of the various countries, etc., and the violent
struggles among the imperialist states—with Kautsky’s silly
little fable about “peaceful” ultra-imperialism. Is this not the
reactionary attempt of a frightened philistine to hide from
stern reality? Are not the international cartels which Kautsky
imagines are the embryos of “ultra-imperialism” (in the same
way as one “can” describe the manufacture of tablets in a
laboratory as ultra-agriculture in embryo) an example of the
division and the redivision of the world, the transition from
peaceful division to non-peaceful division and vice versa? Is
not American and other finance capital, which divided the
whole world peacefully with Germany’s participation in, for
example, the international rail syndicate, or in the
international mercantile shipping trust, now engaged
in redividing the world on the basis of a new relation of forces
that is being changed by methods anything but peaceful?
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? Railway statistics [6] provide
remarkably exact data on the different rates of growth of
capitalism and finance capital in world economy. In the last
decades of imperialist development, the total length of
railways has changed as follows:
Railways (000 kilometers)
Independent and semi-independent states of Asia and America Total 617 1,104
Thus, the development of railways has been most rapid in
the colonies and in the independent (and semi-independent)
states of Asia and America. Here, as we know, the finance
capital of the four or five biggest capitalist states holds
undisputed sway. Two hundred thousand kilometres of new
railways in the colonies and in the other countries of Asia and
America represent a capital of more than 40,000 million marks
newly invested on particularly advantageous terms, with
special guarantees of a good return and with profitable orders
for steel works, etc., etc.
Capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the
colonies and in overseas countries. Among the latter, new
imperialist powers are emerging (e.g., Japan). The
struggle among the world imperialisms is becoming more
acute. The tribute levied by finance capital on the most
profitable colonial and overseas enterprises is increasing. In
the division of this “booty”, an exceptionally large part goes
to countries which do not always stand at the top of the list in
the rapidity of the development of their productive forces. In
the case of the biggest countries, together with their colonies,
the total length of railways was as follows:
(000 kilometres)
1890 1913
U.S. 268 413 +145 British Empire 107 208 +101 Russia 32 78 +46 Germany 43 68 +25 France 41 63 +22 Total 491 830+339
Thus, about 80 per cent of the total existing railways are
concentrated in the hands of the five biggest powers. But the
concentration of the ownership of these railways, the
concentration of finance capital, is immeasurably greater since
the French and British millionaires, for example, own an
enormous amount of shares and bonds in American, Russian
and other railways.
Thanks to her colonies, Great Britain has increased the
length of “her” railways by 100,000 kilometres, four times as
much as Germany. And yet, it is well known that the
development of productive forces in Germany, and especially
the development of the coal and iron industries, has been
incomparably more rapid during this period than in Britain—
not to speak of France and Russia. In 1892, Germany produced
4,900,000 tons of pig-iron and Great Britain produced
6,800,000 tons; in 1912, Germany produced 17,600,000 tons
and Great Britain, 9,000,000 tons. Germany, therefore, had an
overwhelming superiority over Britain in this respect. [7] The
question is: what means other than war could there be under
capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development
of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence
for finance capital on the other?
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM
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 bee completely divided up.But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features
of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves,and
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.We shall see later that imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts—to which the above definition is limited—but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the workingclass movement. The thing to be noted at this point is that imperialism, as interpreted above, undoubtedly represents a special stage in the development of capitalism. To enable the reader to obtain the most wellgrounded idea of imperialism, I deliberately tried to quote as extensively as possible bourgeois economists who have to admit the particularly incontrovertible facts concerning the latest stage of capitalist economy. With the same object in view, I have quoted detailed statistics which enable one to see to what degree bank capital, etc., has grown, in what precisely the transformation of quantity into quality, of developed capitalism into imperialism, was expressed. Needless to say, of course, all boundaries in nature and in society are conventional and changeable, and it would be absurd to argue, for example, about the particular year or decade in which imperialism “definitely” became established.In the matter of defining imperialism, however, we have to enter into controversy, primarily, with Karl Kautsky, the principal Marxist theoretician of the epoch of the so-called Second International—that is, of the twenty-five years between 1889 and 1914. The fundamental ideas expressed in our definition of imperialism were very resolutely attacked by Kautsky in 1915, and even in November 1914, when he said
that imperialism must not be regarded as a “phase” or stage of economy, but as a policy, a definite policy “preferred” by finance capital; that imperialism must not be “identified” with“present-day capitalism”; that if imperialism is to be understood to mean “all the phenomena of present-day capitalism”—cartels, protection, the domination of the financiers, and colonial policy—then the question as to whether imperialism is necessary to capitalism becomes reduced to the “flattest tautology”, because, in that case,“imperialism is naturally a vital necessity for capitalism”, and so on. The best way to present Kautsky’s idea is to quote his
own definition of imperialism, which is diametrically opposed to the substance of the ideas which I have set forth (for the objections coming from the camp of the German Marxists,
who have been advocating similar ideas for many years already, have been long known to Kautsky as the objections of a definite trend in Marxism).Kautsky’s definition is as follows:
“Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex all large areas of agrarian[Kautsky’s italics] territory, irrespective of what nations inhabit it.” [1]
This definition is of no use at all because it one-sidedly, i.e.,arbitrarily, singles out only the national question (although the latter is extremely important in itself as well as in its relation to imperialism), it arbitrarily and inaccurately connects this question only with industrial capital in the countries which
annex other nations, and in an equally arbitrary and inaccurate manner pushes into the forefront the annexation of agrarian regions.
Imperialism is a striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in
general, a striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment, however, we are interested in the economic aspect of the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into his
definition. The inaccuracies in Kautsky’s definition are glaring. The characteristic feature of imperialism is not
industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial capital, that
from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy. The
characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialised regions (German appetite for Belgium; French
appetite for Lorraine), because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges those contemplating a redivision to reach out for every kind of territory, and (2) an essential
feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves as to weaken the adversary and undermine his hegemony. (Belgium is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations against Britain; Britain needs Baghdad as a base for operations against Germany, etc.) Kautsky refers especially—and repeatedly—to English writers who, lie alleges, have given a purely political meaning to the word “imperialism” in the sense that he, Kautsky, understands it. We take up the work by the English writer Hobson, Imperialism, which appeared in 1902, and there we read:
“The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests.” [2]
We see that Kautsky is absolutely wrong in referring to English writers generally (unless lie meant the vulgar English imperialists, or the avowed apologists for imperialism). We see that Kautsky, while claiming that he continues to advocate Marxism, as a matter of fact takes a step backward compared with the social-liberal Hobson, who more correctly takes into account two “historically concrete” (Kautsky’s definition is a
mockery of historical concreteness!) features of modern imperialism:
(1) the competition between several imperialisms, and
(2) the predominance of the financier over the merchant. If it is chiefly a question of
the annexation of agrarian countries by industrial countries, then the role of the merchant is put in the forefront.Kautsky’s definition is not only wrong and un-Marxist. It serves as a basis for a whole system of views which signify a rupture with Marxist theory and Marxist practice all along the line. I shall refer to this later. The argument about words which Kautsky raises as to whether the latest stage of capitalism should be called imperialism or the stage of finance capital is not worth serious attention. Call it what you will, it makes no difference. The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy “preferred” by finance capital,
and opposes to it another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent, non-annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes the basis of the present
peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a non-imperialist policy. The result is a slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.
Kautsky enters into controversy with the German apologist of imperialism and annexations, Cunow, who clumsily and cynically argues that imperialism is present-day capitalism;
the development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive; therefore imperialism is progressive; therefore, we should grovel before it and glorify it! This is something like the caricature of the Russian Marxists which the Narodniks drew in 1894-95. They argued: if the Marxists believe that capitalism is inevitable in Russia, that it is progressive, then they ought to open a tavern and begin to implant capitalism! Kautsky’s reply to Cunow is as follows: imperialism is not present-day capitalism; it is only one of the forms of the policy
of present-day capitalism. This policy we can and should fight, fight imperialism, annexations, etc.
The reply seems quite plausible, but in effect it is a more subtle and more disguised (and therefore more dangerous) advocacy of conciliation with imperialism, because a “fight” against the policy of the trusts and banks that does not affect the economic basis of the trusts and banks is mere bourgeois
reformism and pacifism, the benevolent and innocent expression of pious wishes. Evasion of existing
contradictions, forgetting the most important of them, instead of revealing their full depth—such is Kautsky’s theory, which has nothing in common with Marxism. Naturally, such a “theory” can only serve the purpose of advocating unity with the Cunows!
“From the purely economic point of view,” writes Kautsky, “it is not impossible that capitalism will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism,”
[3] i.e., of a superimperialism, of a union of the imperialisms of the whole world and not struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under capitalism, a phase of “the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital”.
[4] We shall have to deal with this “theory of ultra-imperialism”
later on in order to show in detail how decisively and
completely it breaks with Marxism. At present, in keeping
with the general plan of the present work, we must examine
the exact economic data on this question. “From the purely
economic point of view”, is “ultra-imperialism” possible, or is
it ultra-nonsense?
If the purely economic point of view is meant to be a “pure”
abstraction, then all that can be said reduces itself to the
following proposition: development is proceeding towards
monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly, towards
a single world trust. This is indisputable, but it is also as
completely meaningless as is the statement that “development
is proceeding” towards the manufacture of foodstuffs in
laboratories. In this sense the “theory” of ultra-imperialism is
no less absurd than a “theory of ultra-agriculture” would be.
If, however, we are discussing the “purely economic”
conditions of the epoch of finance capital as a historically
concrete epoch which began at the turn of the
twentieth century, then the best reply that one can make to the
lifeless abstractions of “ultraimperialism” (which serve
exclusively a most reactionary aim: that of diverting attention
from the depth of existing antagonisms) is to contrast them
with the concrete economic realities of the present-day world
economy. Kautsky’s utterly meaningless talk about ultraimperialism
encourages, among other things, that profoundly
mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the
apologists of imperialism, i.e., that the rule of finance
capital lessens the unevenness and contradictions inherent in
the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them.
R. Calwer, in his little book, An Introduction to the World
Economy, [5] made an attempt to summarise the main, purely
economic, data that enable one to obtain a concrete picture of
the internal relations of the world economy at the turn of the
twentieth century. He divides the world into five “main
economic areas”, as follows: (1) Central Europe (the whole of
Europe with the exception of Russia and Great Britain); (2)
Great Britain; (3) Russia; (4) Eastern Asia; (5) America; he
includes the colonies in the “areas” of the states to which they
belong and “leaves aside” a few countries not distributed
according to areas, such as Persia, Afghanistan, and Arabia in
Asia, Morocco and Abyssinia in Africa, etc.
Here is a brief summary of the economic data he quotes on
these regions.
the Central European, the British and the American areas.
Among these are three states which dominate the world:
Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. Imperialist
rivalry and the struggle between these countries have become
extremely keen because Germany has only an insignificant
area and few colonies; the creation of “Central Europe” is still
a matter for the future, it is being born in the midst of a
desperate struggle. For the moment the distinctive feature of
the whole of Europe is political disunity. In the British and
American areas, on the other hand, political concentration is
very highly developed, but there is a vast disparity between
the immense colonies of the one and the insignificant colonies
of the other. In the colonies, however, capitalism is only
beginning to develop. The struggle for South America is
becoming more and more acute.
There are two areas where capitalism is little developed:
Russia and Eastern Asia. In the former, the population is
extremely sparse, in the latter it is extremely dense; in the
former political concentration is high, in the latter it does not
exist. The partitioning of China is only just beginning, and the
struggle for it between Japan, the U.S., etc., is continually
gaining in intensity.
Compare this reality—the vast diversity of economic and
political conditions, the extreme disparity in the rate of
development of the various countries, etc., and the violent
struggles among the imperialist states—with Kautsky’s silly
little fable about “peaceful” ultra-imperialism. Is this not the
reactionary attempt of a frightened philistine to hide from
stern reality? Are not the international cartels which Kautsky
imagines are the embryos of “ultra-imperialism” (in the same
way as one “can” describe the manufacture of tablets in a
laboratory as ultra-agriculture in embryo) an example of the
division and the redivision of the world, the transition from
peaceful division to non-peaceful division and vice versa? Is
not American and other finance capital, which divided the
whole world peacefully with Germany’s participation in, for
example, the international rail syndicate, or in the
international mercantile shipping trust, now engaged
in redividing the world on the basis of a new relation of forces
that is being changed by methods anything but peaceful?
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? Railway statistics [6] provide
remarkably exact data on the different rates of growth of
capitalism and finance capital in world economy. In the last
decades of imperialist development, the total length of
railways has changed as follows:
Railways (000 kilometers)
Independent and semi-independent states of Asia and America Total 617 1,104
Thus, the development of railways has been most rapid in
the colonies and in the independent (and semi-independent)
states of Asia and America. Here, as we know, the finance
capital of the four or five biggest capitalist states holds
undisputed sway. Two hundred thousand kilometres of new
railways in the colonies and in the other countries of Asia and
America represent a capital of more than 40,000 million marks
newly invested on particularly advantageous terms, with
special guarantees of a good return and with profitable orders
for steel works, etc., etc.
Capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the
colonies and in overseas countries. Among the latter, new
imperialist powers are emerging (e.g., Japan). The
struggle among the world imperialisms is becoming more
acute. The tribute levied by finance capital on the most
profitable colonial and overseas enterprises is increasing. In
the division of this “booty”, an exceptionally large part goes
to countries which do not always stand at the top of the list in
the rapidity of the development of their productive forces. In
the case of the biggest countries, together with their colonies,
the total length of railways was as follows:
(000 kilometres)
1890 1913
U.S. 268 413 +145 British Empire 107 208 +101 Russia 32 78 +46 Germany 43 68 +25 France 41 63 +22 Total 491 830+339
Thus, about 80 per cent of the total existing railways are
concentrated in the hands of the five biggest powers. But the
concentration of the ownership of these railways, the
concentration of finance capital, is immeasurably greater since
the French and British millionaires, for example, own an
enormous amount of shares and bonds in American, Russian
and other railways.
Thanks to her colonies, Great Britain has increased the
length of “her” railways by 100,000 kilometres, four times as
much as Germany. And yet, it is well known that the
development of productive forces in Germany, and especially
the development of the coal and iron industries, has been
incomparably more rapid during this period than in Britain—
not to speak of France and Russia. In 1892, Germany produced
4,900,000 tons of pig-iron and Great Britain produced
6,800,000 tons; in 1912, Germany produced 17,600,000 tons
and Great Britain, 9,000,000 tons. Germany, therefore, had an
overwhelming superiority over Britain in this respect. [7] The
question is: what means other than war could there be under
capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development
of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence
for finance capital on the other?
No comments:
Post a Comment