Imperialism, Highest Stage of Capitalism: Reflections on one of Lenin's most important works
“It is characteristic of capitalism in general that the ownership of capital is separated from the application of capital to production, that money capital is separated from industrial or productive capital, and that the rentier who lives entirely on income obtained from money capital, is separated from the entrepreneur and from all who are directly concerned in the management of capital. Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, is that highest stage of capitalism in which this separation reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the predominance of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy; it means that a small number of financially “powerful” states stand out among all the rest. The extent to which this process is going on may be judged from the statistics on emissions, i.e., the issue of all kinds of securities.”
—V.I. Lenin, 1916 (from Ch. III "Finance Capital and the Financial Oligarchy")
A global rate of profit has been falling and, in order to survive and withstand the problems and challenges it faces, as well as to preserve the current system, capitalism has to adapt and create new policies. Hence why we see phenomena such as neoliberalism or cheaper means to produce goods being sought out. Capital must also expand beyond national borders; and thus, there is an internal logic to Empire-building and imperialist wars of aggression.
It has been 101 years since the Great October Revolution, but Imperialism, Highest Stage of Capitalism, one of Lenin's most important works, continues to be relevant today as we remember him for his contributions in supporting anti-colonial struggles. At the time of writing, Lenin realized that capitalism had changed since Marx’s time because the age of imperialism had begun, and that capitalism had entered into its globalist phase. He also saw competing national capitals between advanced industrial nations such as Britain and Germany which led up to World War I and II, the cycle of world wars he correctly predicted would happen. Although he did not foresee the advent of nuclear weapons and proxy wars -- or the emergence of the United States as the sole global superpower at the end of the Cold War (he was not a clairvoyant) -- his analysis on the sets of international capitals competing with one another for access to the world’s wealth, which places them in direct contradiction with each other, still holds true today. As per the very nature of capitalism, there cannot be any peace so long as that kind of struggle continues to exist; and by extension, a nuclear-free world is impossible under capitalism, especially in its globalist phase. He sums up these contradictions in Chapter 5:
“Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among themselves and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and “spheres of influence” of the big monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things “naturally” gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels.”
Now of course, and as Lenin acknowledges in the 7th chapter, colonial domination and imperialism did exist well before 'late-stage' capitalism, as the Roman Empire practiced imperialism and it was built on slavery and colonial expansionism. However, he points out that there are key differences, namely: the existence of finance capital and "the domination of monopolist associations of big employers" in 'late-stage' capitalism; and monopolies are the most important features. Rome, on the other hand, was an agrarian and trade-dominated economy. In other words, and starting at the beginning of the 20th century, monopolies had acquired supremacy in the imperialist nations, which is what differentiates the American Empire and the British Empire from the Roman Empire.
We also learn from Lenin that national capitals, in the past, had to build up within their own markets and within their own borders -- until they had to expand beyond those because of the threat of collapsing within themselves, which drives imperialism. And imperialism commits the crimes that it does because capitalism must constantly expand in order to sustain itself.
So what lessons can we take away from this important piece of work today, in this post-Cold War era, as we witness an ever-increasing drive to war against Russia by the U.S. and its NATO allies? Moreover, what should we be aiming for when we say we want peace? I'll leave you here with the words of Stephen Gowans from his book, Patriots, Traitors, and Empires: The Story of Korea's Struggle for Freedom, which draws heavily upon Lenin's work:
"...[T]oday, poor, post-colonial countries, whose economic development has been historically stifled, distorted, and yoked to the requirements of their former colonial masters, are not supposed to emulate the development practices of the United States. They cannot possibly compete on a level playing field with empires that have amassed enormous wealth, and have done so not only through their own past protectionist measures, but also through their long histories of plundering colonies and semi-colonies of their resources, land, and labor.
A direct line runs from Lenin's view that the international order ought to be based on the voluntary association of equal partners for mutual (and not coerced and unequal) benefit..." (pp. 42-43)
_________________
Full text for further reading: https://www.marxists.org/
Comments
Post a Comment