Lenin's Theory of Imperialism

[Lyev]

I've very nearly finished Imperialism- the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and, basically, I was just kind of browsing the forums, and I found some stuff on how Luxemburgists and Left Communists reject Lenin's theory of Imperialism. What is there to be rejected about it? The main points seem to be:

1. Imperialism is the most developed stage of capitalism where basically competition is eradicated; ie. every other company is destroyed or bought out by the biggest, few companies at the top, monoplies are created. I think there's a quote; 'Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private.' I think maybe quite an obvious example of this attribute of imperialism is a company like Wal-Mart as the overbearing monolith in the USA that leaves no room for competition because it's huge. I think it earns, per annum, more than a lot of developing countries.

2. The second and last main attribute of Lenin's imperialism is where a few powerful countries bully the rest of the world into being their *****es, basically. They export finance capital from these countries, and make a profit the resources in that country. This doesn't happen quite like it 130 odd years ago, but Africa is still scarred from the greedy white men that fought over the resources there and subjugated the people. One obvious example I can think of, in the present, of this attribute of imperialism ( ie. conquest of another country for control of it's resources) is the USA involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan for control of the oil and petroleum.

So, if all the above information is correct, what is there that's wrong in Lenin's theory of imperialism? And why do you Left Communists reject it? Oh and another question I have what's different between Lenin's version of imperialism and anyone else's? By the way, if anything is wrong or needs adding to my interpretation of imperialism, please could you help me out with that? Plus, are my examples of imperialism apt? Replies from Leninists and Left Communists alike will be appreciated.

Thanks comrades.

[amandevsingh]

powerful countries bully the rest of the world into being their *****es, basically.

You will regret typing this... Believe me.

[Lyev]

You will regret typing this... Believe me.

How come? It's true, isn't it? I'm only asking questions; if there's something wrong with what I've typed don't bollock me, just tell me what's wrong with it.

Edit: Oh... I just realised, could some people misconstrue it as being sexist? Sorry if I offended anyone, I'm not sexist and I meant nothing by it.

[ArrowLance]

How come? It's true, isn't it? I'm only asking questions; if there's something wrong with what I've typed don't bollock me, just tell me what's wrong with it.

Edit: Oh... I just realised, could some people misconstrue it as being sexist? Sorry if I offended anyone, I'm not sexist and I meant nothing by it.

Ya, bad word to use. But '****' has been approved!

[amandevsingh]

I like your style though, I give you points for that ;)

[Devrim]

Lenin's theory of imperialism isn't rejected by all left communists, though the political conclusions that he drew from it concerning national liberation are.

In our organisation, the ICC, the majority do hold an analysis based on Luxemburg's, but not all our members do, and not all left communists do.

Luxemburg's major work on the subject is 'The Accumulation of Capital':
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/anti-critique/index.htm

Devrim

[Искра]

Just one funny anecdote :)
Lenin theory is well know and thereof re it's accepted by my collage (politics), but Luxemburg's isn't. We read Lenin's and then I gave few critics about it and pointed to Rosa's etc. and my professor said that it's a priori rubbish ;)

[chegitz guevara]

It's not so much that Lenin argues that the imperialists bully the rest of the world (though they do). Imperialism constitutes the export of capital and the development of third world countries sites of production and markets for imperialist production. This can occur either through direct colonial administration or through investment. Germany was the chief imperialist investor in Latin America for a good while (late 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries--Lenin even discusses German investments in Brazil). One certainly couldn't believe that Germany exercised direct control over Latin America.

[KC]

Lenin never really developed a "theory of imperialism". Rather, he drew upon Hobson, Hilferding and Bukharin's works to create the popular pamphlet designed to address relevant issues of the day.

In fact, Lenin did not address many points that would have been necessary to develop an actual coherent theory; he took many assumptions and only addressed issues relevant to the purpose of the pamphlet. We can see the confusion that results from this in the various different interpretations of Lenin's positions on imperialism and anti-imperialist struggles.

[bricolage]

Luxemburg's major work on the subject is 'The Accumulation of Capital'

I tried to read The Accumulation of Capital once and got quickly confused so gave up on it, granted I was about 15 but it's put me off trying again.

As such it would be very helpful if someone could give an overview of it and how it differs from Lenin's theory.

[Q]

Lenin never really developed a "theory of imperialism". Rather, he drew upon Hobson, Hilferding and Bukharin's works to create the popular pamphlet designed to address relevant issues of the day.

In fact, Lenin did not address many points that would have been necessary to develop an actual coherent theory; he took many assumptions and only addressed issues relevant to the purpose of the pamphlet. We can see the confusion that results from this in the various different interpretations of Lenin's positions on imperialism and anti-imperialist struggles.
Didn't Lenin draw a lot of his work on imperialism from Kautsky aswell? Or am I mistaken? I know Kautsky went even further with his "super imperialism".

[Luisrah]

I always idealized the Imperialism of countries as normal capitalism between companies.

One country explores more and more workers, some from different countries. It grows too much and starts ''buying'' other countries (globalization for example). It gets richer every second,but only the bosses of course, (- the bourgeoisie) because they still need workers to explore (third world countries with neo-colonialism).

It keeps surviving because it does advertising (propaganda) to keep other small companies (anti-imperialist and socialist countries) from growing and taking their monopoly.

I think that that pretty much sums it up with a ''metaphore'' heh

[Lyev]

Lenin's theory of imperialism isn't rejected by all left communists, though the political conclusions that he drew from it concerning national liberation are.

In our organisation, the ICC, the majority do hold an analysis based on Luxemburg's, but not all our members do, and not all left communists do.

Luxemburg's major work on the subject is 'The Accumulation of Capital':
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/anti-critique/index.htm

Devrim

Could someone please expound on this? Why do some people reject Lenin's theory? And specifically could some explain this further: 'the political conclusions that he drew from it concerning national liberation are.'

Also please may someone explain this quote (below) a little further?


In fact, Lenin did not address many points that would have been necessary to develop an actual coherent theory; he took many assumptions and only addressed issues relevant to the purpose of the pamphlet. We can see the confusion that results from this in the various different interpretations of Lenin's positions on imperialism and anti-imperialist struggles.

Oh and also, whilst while we're on the topic of Lenin please may someone explain about Lenin's theory of 'democratic-centralism' and why some people reject that? I think democratic-centralism is basically once people in a party have voted (democratic part) and the majority agrees with a certain subject (ie. more than 50%) everyone else has to agree with it? (centralism part) Is that right? I might be wrong, I'd like to hear opinions on it, from Leninists and/or any other tendency.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Didn't Lenin draw a lot of his work on imperialism from Kautsky aswell? Or am I mistaken? I know Kautsky went even further with his "super imperialism".

Actually, it was Kautsky who drew upon the likes of Hobson to "outline" the Marxist concept of imperialism long before Lenin's popular outline. At the same time, Hilferding elaborated upon the finance capital portion of Kautsky's outline.