The anti-imperialist delusion

[robbo203]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug98/index.html (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/aug98/index.html)

The anti-imperialist delusion


In the course of the 20th century socialism, as a word, came to be transformed from a doctrine and aim associated with the emancipation of the working class into a doctrine and aim associated with the coming to power of nationalist, anti—imperialist elites in the economically less developed parts of the world.
The starting point was the coming to power in Russia in 1917 of an elite which had inherited its ideology from the workers movement but which in practice used the state to develop Russia economically and turn it into a power that challenged the domination of the world by America, Britain and France. As such it provided an attractive model for modernizing elites in other countries suffering from economic backwardness and domination by the advanced industrial capitalist states of the West.
The trouble was that this elite continued to use the language and terminology of the workers movement with which it had once been associated. Thus they described their seizure of power as a "workers' revolution" arid their regime as a "workers' state", the first breakthrough by the international workers movement which workers everywhere had a duty to support. And they described the accumulation of capital under the auspices of the state which they were carrying out, not as the state capitalism it was, but as "socialism".
Marx, who had pointed out that when studying history you should not analyze social and political movements by what they said they were doing hut by the material results of what they did, would have been the first to understand (if not to appreciate) how socialism, indeed how his own theories, had become the banner under which a quite different struggle was fought out.
The English Revolution of the 1640s was carried out under an ideology derived from the Old Testament. The French Revolution of the 1790s was carried out under one derived from Roman times. The Russian Revolution, which was the equivalent in Russia of these anti—feudal revolutions, was carried out under an ideology derived from the workers movement but it was no more an attempt to establish socialism than the English Revolution had been to establish the New Jerusalem or the French to revive the Roman Republic.
Although it was Mao who replaced the slogan "Workers of the World, Unite" by "Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite", the roots of this change of perspective go hack to Lenin.
Lenin's highest stage
In exile in Switzerland in the middle of the First World War Lenin wrote a pamphlet which he entitled Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In it he argued that, through a process which had been completed by the turn of the century, capitalism had changed its character. Industrial capital and bank capital had merged into finance capital, and competitive capitalism had given way to monopoly capitalism in which trusts, cartels and other monopolistic arrangements had come to dominate production. Faced with falling profits from investments at home, these monopolies were under economic pressure to export capital and invest it in the economically backward parts of the world where higher than normal profits could be made. Hence, Lenin went on, the struggle by the most advanced industrial countries to secure colonies where such "super-profits" could be made.
Lenin exaggerated both the degree to which capitalism had become monopolistic and the difference between the rate of profit at home compared with in the economically backward parts of the world. But it was the political implications of his theory that were to prove the more damaging to the workers movement.
When, after 1917, Lenin became the head of the Bolshevik regime in Russia the theory was expanded to argue that the imperialist countries were exploiting the whole population of the backward areas they controlled and that even a section of the working class in the imperialist countries benefited from the super—profits made from the imperialist exploitation of these countries in the form of social reforms and higher wages,
This was nonsense in terms of Marxian economics which does not measure the level of exploitation by how high or low wages are but by reference to the amount of surplus value produced as compared with the amount of wages paid, whether high or low. By this measure the workers of the advanced countries were more exploited thin those of the colonies, despite their higher wages, because they produced more profits per worker.
Lenin's expanded theory made the struggle in the world riot one between an international working class and an international capitalist class, but between imperialist and anti—imperialist states. The international class struggle which socialism preached was replaced by a doctrine which preached an international struggle between states.
The Russian revolution itself was situated in an anti—imperialist context. The whole thrust of Marx's own analysis of capitalism was that the workers movement would first triumph in the economically advanced parts of the world, not in a relatively backward economic area like Russia. Lenin explained away this contradiction by arguing that Marx had been describing the situation in the pre—imperialist stage of capitalism whereas, in the imperialist stage which had evolved after his death, the capitalist state had become so strong that the breakthrough would not take place in an advanced capitalist country but in the weakest imperialist state. Tsarist Russia had been the weakest link in the chain of imperialist countries and this explained why it was there that the first "workers revolution" had taken place.
This was tantamount to saying that the Russian revolution was the first "anti—imperialist" revolution, and in a sense it was. Russia was the first country to escape from the domination of the Western capitalist countries and to follow a path of economic development that depended on using the state to accumulate capital internally instead of relying on the export of capital from other countries.
In the early days of the Bolshevik regime, when Russia was faced with a civil war and outside intervention by the Western capitalist powers, Lenin realised that this was a card he could play to try to save his regime. Playing the anti -imperialist card meant appealing to the "toiling masses" of Asia not to establish socialism but to carry out their own anti-imperialist revolutions. The 'super-exploited" countries were to be encouraged to seek independence as this would weaken the imperialist states, who were putting pressure on Bolshevik Russia.
This strategy was presented to the workers movement in the West as a way of provoking the socialist revolution in their countries. Deprived of their super— profits, the ruling class in the imperialist countries would no longer be able to bribe their workers with social reforms and higher wages; the workers would therefore turn away from reformism and embrace revolution.
After Lenin's death in 1924, this strategy of building up an "anti-imperialist" front against the West was continued by his successors. Because it taught that all the people of a colonial or a dominated country had a common interest in obtaining independence, i.e. a state of their own, it was very attractive to nationalist ideologists and politicians in these countries.
They called on all the inhabitants of the country they sought to rule to unite behind them in a common struggle to achieve independence. As a result, in these countries "socialism" became associated with militant nationalism rather than with the working-class internationalism it had originally been. The political struggle there came to be seen as a struggle, not between the working class and the capitalist class, hut as a struggle of all patriotic elements— workers, peasants and capitalists together—against a handful of traitorous, unpatriotic elements who would have sold out to foreign imperialists.
They called on all the inhabitants of the country they sought to rule to unite behind them in a common struggle to achieve independence. As a result, in these countries "socialism" became associated with militant nationalism rather than with the working—class internationalism it had originally been. The political struggle there came to be seen as a struggle, not between the working class and the capitalist class, hut as a struggle of all patriotic elements— workers, peasants and capitalists together—against a handful of traitorous, unpatriotic elements who would have sold out to foreign imperialists.
Whereas in Europe and North America, and parts of Latin America, socialism was a movement for the emancipation of the working class represented by various different currents in Asia and later in Africa and the rest of Latin America it was the name of a nationalist, revolutionary anti-imperialist movement. Marxism, in its original sense, has never really existed in many of these countries. What passed for Marxism was in fact Leninism and it appealed to revolutionary modernising intellectuals rather than to workers. It has only been towards the end of this century that groups of workers in these countries have come to realise that Leninism and its anti-imperialist ideology had nothing to do with real socialism. But the damage had been done. To millions of workers in these parts of the world socialism still means nationalism and state capitalism which some of them still they see as something positive rather than a barrier to the working-class co-operation across frontiers which is an essential condition for socialism.
Through the influence which state capitalist Russia used to have over a part of the workers movement in Western countries this is what it came to mean to many working class militants in these countries too. The Russian rulers used the Communist parties outside Russia as simple auxiliaries to their foreign policy which was based on the strategic interests of Russia as an up-and-corning (state) capitalist power. What was "progressive" was what coincided with Russia's foreign policy' interests.
During the 1950s Russia moved towards a policy of acceptance of the status quo with the West known as "peaceful coexistence". The Chinese Leninists, who had conic to power under Mao in 1949, perceived the interest of their state differently and sought to become the champion of "anti-imperialism" in place of Russia.
The splits that resulted in the world Communist movement were thus provoked, not as might superficially appear to be the case, by differences over what tactics the workers movement should pursue but over which so-called socialist country's foreign policy - Russia's or China's - should be supported. This was not a dispute which concerned the working class interest at all, but was an argument between states in which workers were being asked to choose whose foreign policy pawns they wished to be. Lenin's theory of insperialism had contained the seeds of such a shameful outcome from the start as it made the most significant struggle at world level not the class struggle but the struggle between states, between so-called anti— imperialist and progressive states and so— called imperialist and reactionary states. This was a dangerous diversion from the class struggle and led to workers supporting the killing in wars of other workers in the interest of one or other state and its ruling class.

[BobKKKindle$]

The whole thrust of Marx's own analysis of capitalism was that the workers movement would first triumph in the economically advanced parts of the world This is not true at all. In the 1882 Preface to the Russian version of The Communist Manifesto, Marx explicitly argued that communism was possible in a country like Russia despite Russia still being one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world at that point, lagging far behind the most advanced capitalist countries, on the grounds that communal forms of peasant ownership could serve as an ideological and material basis for the future society. Now, this is very different from the kind of analysis that people like Trotsky would later use to show that revolution was possible in Russia, and also stands in tension with a lot of what Marx had to say about why capitalism is progressive for humanity, but this argument does indicate that he didn't adopt the mechanical version of historical materialism that you seem to be adopting, and did not believe that the only thing workers in countries in Russia could do was wait until the productive forces had caught up with the rest of the world, which is the conclusion that your position implies. More importantly, however, even if we accept that Marx did hold the view that revolution was only possible or most likely to take place in the most advanced capitalist countries, the fact that Marx held this view is not a good reason to accept it, because any Marxist worth her salt can recognize that Marx made mistakes in any number of areas and that there have been important developments in Marxist theory since then, many of those developments being based on the concrete experience of revolution and working class struggle, especially in Russia. The only thing your article has to say about Lenin's theory of imperialism and the view that revolution is most likely to break out in countries such as Russia is that there are certain aspects of Lenin's theory of imperialism that are problematic and that the theory of the labour aristocracy in particular is wrong - yet you do not acknowledge that the theory of the labour aristocracy is in no way central to the theory of permanent revolution and that there are a number of currents on the left who accept Trotsky's theory and see themselves as standing in the tradition of the Russian Revolution whilst also rejecting the existence of any labour aristocracy, including my own organization. What this article really wants to show is that the Russian working class shouldn't have taken power in 1917 because there was no possibility of the revolutionary leading to anything other than Russia's development through forced development, under a new ruling class, let alone international revolution.

This simply ignores the conditions that were present in Russia in that year and is cover for a very reactionary brand of politics. On the one hand there was a proletariat that had created its own organizations in the form of parties like the Bolsheviks, which was overwhelmingly comprised of ordinary workers and has a huge presence in Russia's most important cities and factories, and since February the proletariat had also existed in a situation of dual power with a government of the bourgeoisie, having created its own institutions of democratic rule in the form of the Soviets. On the other hand there was a growing threat from the right firstly in the form of Kornilov and secondly in the form of proto-fascist movements such as the Black Hundreds, which sought to defeat the threat from the left by doing away with the illusion of democratic rule and imposing an authoritarian form of government that would enable the crushing of all worker organizations and eliminate all of the basic gains that had been made possible by the events of February. In this situation the idea that Russia could possibly have gone down the path of peaceful capitalist development under a bourgeois democratic, insofar as any kind of capitalist development can be considered peaceful, is absurd. The choice was literally between socialist revolution and what Trotsky would eventually come to recognize as fascism, and so when we have people such as yourself telling us that nothing good could ever have come out of the Russian Revolution, in spite of the real possibility of international revolution that emerged in the years following 1917, that is an entirely abstract point of view that does not give any indications as to what workers should have done, if not seize power and establish the world's first socialist government.

Your silence when it comes to what workers in countries like Russia can do to emancipate themselves as well as the chauvinist nature of your position that revolution is only possible in the advanced countries is even more evident later on in this article when you assert that Marxism "has never really existed in many of these countries", referring to the underdeveloped countries of the world. The fact is that there have been uprisings involving the working class in these countries. Not only that, the vast majority of worker uprisings in the past century took place in countries that were not amongst the most developed states in the world but contained conditions that made the proliferation of radical ideas and revolutionary struggles of the kind that occurred in Russia possible, specifically the existence of advanced industries, these industries being the consequence of imperialist penetration, alongside various forms of political and economic backwardness. By dismissing these countries as never having contained real Marxists you are refusing to engage with events that did have the potential to bring the working class to power and to prompt workers in other parts of the world to take power as well - Russia is the obvious example of this but further examples can be found in China, especially in the 1920s, when the CPC, a party commanding the support of thousands of workers in cities such as Canton and Shanghai, witnessed the creation of Soviets. You are fundamentally on the same side of the metaphorical barricades as Stalinists and ironically you are close to the kind of anti-imperialist politics that are condemned in this article (which don't actually having anything to do with Lenin's ideas on the national question at all, because Lenin always emphasized the importance of socialists maintaining their political independence, not subordinating themselves to petty-bourgeois nationalists) because you reject the possibility of an international revolution beginning in underdeveloped countries and call on the workers of these countries to simply wait until they are developed or until the workers of the first world come to the rescue. Unfortunately for you, workers in underdeveloped countries are never going to sit there and wait, they are going to continue to take action against the bourgeoisie, and the socialists in those countries as well as those of us in countries like the UK who support them are going to debate their struggles, and think of the ways they can take power, and the potential that their struggles have for the rest of the world, whilst you scream that socialism is impossible because these countries aren't developed enough, and are ignored.

Like I said, a reactionary brand of politics.

[robbo203]

This is not true at all. In the 1882 Preface to the Russian version of The Communist Manifesto, Marx explicitly argued that communism was possible in a country like Russia despite Russia still being one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world at that point, lagging far behind the most advanced capitalist countries, on the grounds that communal forms of peasant ownership could serve as an ideological and material basis for the future society. Now, this is very different from the kind of analysis that people like Trotsky would later use to show that revolution was possible in Russia, and also stands in tension with a lot of what Marx had to say about why capitalism is progressive for humanity, but this argument does indicate that he didn't adopt the mechanical version of historical materialism that you seem to be adopting, and did not believe that the only thing workers in countries in Russia could do was wait until the productive forces had caught up with the rest of the world, which is the conclusion that your position implies...

No it doesnt. My position, or rather the position of the author of the article (which is not me BTW) is that communism or socialism was simply not possible in Russia at the time because inter alia the low level of the productive forces ruled this out. This is the orthodox Marxian position (which incidentally was also held by Lenin). It is hardly "mechanical" but actually very well reasoned from a materialist perepstive. You claim that the 1882 preface suggested that. "Marx explicitly argued that communism was possible in a country like Russia despite Russia still being one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world at that point". It did nothing of the sort. It actually made the possibility of the obshchina passing directly into the common ownership to form the "starting point of a communist development" contingent upon a proletarian revolution in the west which is actually somewhat closer to the position adopted by Trotsky. But I dont think Marx or Engels ever really expected a communist revolution to break out first in Russia. In fact Engels in particular quite explicity talked of the possibility of a forthcoming capitalist revolution in Russia and in one of his letters said that what he knew about Russia was that it was "approaching its 1789".



More importantly, however, even if we accept that Marx did hold the view that revolution was only possible or most likely to take place in the most advanced capitalist countries, the fact that Marx held this view is not a good reason to accept it, because any Marxist worth her salt can recognize that Marx made mistakes in any number of areas and that there have been important developments in Marxist theory since then, many of those developments being based on the concrete experience of revolution and working class struggle, especially in Russia. ...


But there is a good reason why it was "only possible or most likely to take place in the most advanced capitalist countries" or at least there certainly was in Marx's time. And this is so irrespective of what Marx said. Today the situation is different because, unlike in Marx's time, we have had for for several decades the productive potential to support a genuine global communist society. While it is true that there can be no socialism (aka communism) in one country, the question of where a communist revolution actually breaks out first is much less important in my opinion. Wherever it breaks out first, it is clear that the very nature of the revolution is such that that it would imply that communist consciousness would be developed to a very marked degree everywhere else in the world as well



The only thing your article has to say about Lenin's theory of imperialism and the view that revolution is most likely to break out in countries such as Russia is that there are certain aspects of Lenin's theory of imperialism that are problematic and that the theory of the labour aristocracy in particular is wrong - yet you do not acknowledge that the theory of the labour aristocracy is in no way central to the theory of permanent revolution and that there are a number of currents on the left who accept Trotsky's theory and see themselves as standing in the tradition of the Russian Revolution whilst also rejecting the existence of any labour aristocracy, including my own organization. What this article really wants to show is that the Russian working class shouldn't have taken power in 1917 because there was no possibility of the revolutionary leading to anything other than Russia's development through forced development, under a new ruling class, let alone international revolution....


The Russian working class didnt take power in 1917 - this is yet another of those enduring leftist myths - it was actually Lenin's vanguard that did so and which rapidly crystallised into a proto state capitalist class. This was precisely the capitalist revolution , Russia's 1789, that Engels had correctly anticipated back in the 19th century



This simply ignores the conditions that were present in Russia in that year and is cover for a very reactionary brand of politics. On the one hand there was a proletariat that had created its own organizations in the form of parties like the Bolsheviks, which was overwhelmingly comprised of ordinary workers and has a huge presence in Russia's most important cities and factories, and since February the proletariat had also existed in a situation of dual power with a government of the bourgeoisie, having created its own institutions of democratic rule in the form of the Soviets. ....


The class composition of the Bolshevik party is utterly irrelevant, what matters is the role that the Bolshevik party was fated to play by the very circumstances it found itself in. The vast majority of Tory supporters are workers but you wouldnt want to say the Tory party is a "proletarian party" would you now? Incidentally, I dont take a conspiratorial view of the Bolsheviks. There was obviously a degree of machiavellianism involved but primarily I see them as having been driven by circumstances beyond their control to develop capitalism

Interestingly Marx makes the point that even revolutions that appear to be directed against the bourgeosie itself - and here the Bolshevik Revolution springs to mind - can, in the end, serve to entrench the rule of capital:
If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality" , 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm



On the other hand there was a growing threat from the right firstly in the form of Kornilov and secondly in the form of proto-fascist movements such as the Black Hundreds, which sought to defeat the threat from the left by doing away with the illusion of democratic rule and imposing an authoritarian form of government that would enable the crushing of all worker organizations and eliminate all of the basic gains that had been made possible by the events of February. In this situation the idea that Russia could possibly have gone down the path of peaceful capitalist development under a bourgeois democratic, insofar as any kind of capitalist development can be considered peaceful, is absurd. The choice was literally between socialist revolution and what Trotsky would eventually come to recognize as fascism,
....

This is absolute rubbish. There was another choice and that was to develop state capitalism which is precisely what the Bolsheviks did. Socialism was not on the cards because there simply was not the mass socialist consciousness (as Lenin clearly recognised) for this to happen. This is to say nothing of the terrible conditions at the time and the economic backwardness of the country. The other option you mention of ngoing down the path of peaceful capitalist development under a bourgeois democratic was possibly although I think the Mensheviks and the SRs fouled this one up by their incompetent blundering. However the Menshevik road to capitalist development as opposed to the Bolshevik road to capitalist development was not so absurd as to be completely out of the question. It could have happened that way but then I guess it is idle speculating on what could have happened



and so when we have people such as yourself telling us that nothing good could ever have come out of the Russian Revolution, in spite of the real possibility of international revolution that emerged in the years following 1917, that is an entirely abstract point of view that does not give any indications as to what workers should have done, if not seize power and establish the world's first socialist government.

....

What "real possibility of international revolution" after 1917??? This is wishful thinking on a grand scale. Nowhere in Europe or elsewhere was there a mass communist movement seeking a genuine communist alternative to capitalism. The working class of Europe were still butchering each other figting their masters cause. The only apparent exception was Germany with the Spartacus uprising but this was still a distinctly minority affair and driven more other concerns than a positive desire to establish an authentic communist alternative. You have an overly romantic view of history Im afraid


Your silence when it comes to what workers in countries like Russia can do to emancipate themselves as well as the chauvinist nature of your position that revolution is only possible in the advanced countries is even more evident later on in this article when you assert that Marxism "has never really existed in many of these countries", referring to the underdeveloped countries of the world.
....

I have said several time before I believe that if I was a Russian worker in 1917 I would probably have been active in the Factory Committees and resolute in my oppostion to both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Under the circumstances workers taking over the factories was probably the best option available. But this was not socialism , not by a long way (strictly speaking it was worker-controlled capitalism) and this is where I part company with romantic idealists like yourself who evidently have a pretty tenuous grasp of what is mean by socialism and the logical implications that flow from it

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that that title is overly provocative, if one is attempting to spur reasonable discussion on the issue.

[KC]

Edit

[KC]

Edit

[robbo203]

Of course robbo can't defend against what I have said because he knows it is true.


If you care to be a bit more specific about what i am supposed to be defending then I might care to respond. The banality and vagueness of your earlier response doesnt give much me much of a clue, frankly. So the article (which it not mine BTW) didnt say this or didnt say that. It would have however been more useful if you had addressed your comments to what it did say.

[KC]

Edit

[Guerrilla22]

The Russian working class didnt take power in 1917 - this is yet another of those enduring leftist myths - it was actually Lenin's vanguard that did so and which rapidly crystallised into a proto state capitalist class. This was precisely the capitalist revolution , Russia's 1789, that Engels had correctly anticipated back in the 19th century



Hundreds of thousands were invovled and the Febuary revolution began while Lenin was still out of the country so I don't think one can claim that it was merely a small group led by Lenin.

[KC]

Edit

[robbo203]

My response was neither. You simply can't offer a coherent and reasonable rebuttal because you know that there is none. If you want to, though, you could start by quoting where Lenin stated explicitly that imperialism theory is concerned exclusively between the relationship between nation-states and not between classes (and I have the quotes lined up in my head to prove you wrong). To be clear, I am referring to this statement in the article:
Lenin's expanded theory made the struggle in the world riot one between an international working class and an international capitalist class, but between imperialist and anti—imperialist states. The international class struggle which socialism preached was replaced by a doctrine which preached an international struggle between states


I think you are being a trifle over-rigid and pedantic here. The article was talking about Lenin's theory of imperialism and how it has come to be used. It is a fact - is it not - that so called national liberation movements influenced by Leninist idoelogy have subordinated or perhaps I should say, prostituted, talk of international working class struggle against international capital to their own bourgeois goal of national liberation, however dressed up in the rhetoric of marxism. Marx made the point that you dont judge a person by what they say they are but by what they do. This applies very well to national liberation movements and in this case, particularly those influenced by leninist ideology.

As far as Lenins own theory of imperialism is concerned Lenin took the view that nation-state rivalry in the imperial system intensified nationalist sentiments among the working class and this deflected class struggle. However in the long term he argued this would undermine first imperialism and then capitalism in the core. Nation-state rivalry would lead to inter-imperial wars. The costs (financial drain) and devastation (destruction of productive capacity) of these wars would weaken the core states, since the losers would find themselves in an unfavorable position and with a diminished capacity to exploit the periphery and because nationalist movements in the periphery and anti-colonial wars would undermine the capacity of even victorious core nations to exploit the periphery. Once the core lost control over its colonies , it would stagnate domestically. This in turn would raise the level of antagonisms between capitalists and workers proletariat leading to a socialist revolution in the core. Indeeds Lenins theoretically unsound notion of a bribed "labour aristocacy" sharing in the spoils of coloinal exploitation - an idea that has been empirically demolished - is tied in very much with this whole scenario and was mentioned in the article you criticise (though you seem to have forgotten that in your hasty enthusiasm to condemn). If you get rid imperialist super-exploitation according to the argument, you deprive the metropolitan capitalists of their ability to bribe the labour aristocracy into supporting refromism. In this sense the article I posted is correct: class struggle is subordinated to national struggle even if the effect of latter is (supposedly) to clear the way towards an upsurge in class struggle.

Thus, the logic of Lenin's whole approach was to support what he called oppressed nations against what he called oppressor nations and support temporary alliances with national democratic bourgeoisie. You are surely not going to deny this? Heres just one quote among many
"For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, or India on Britain, or Persia or China on Russia, and so on, these would be 'just', and 'defensive' wars, irrespective of who would be the first to attack; any socialist would wish the oppressed, dependent and unequal states victory over the oppressor, slave-holding and predatory 'Great' Powers. "The difference between Wars of Aggression and of Defence" in "Socialism and War", Collected Works, vol. 21, pp. 300

And yes of course I know Marx supported (certain) national liberation struggles but I do not support that either. However, I cant say that I rate Lenin's so called contribution to marxism in this area particularly highly and Im not just talking about the plainly false notion of the labour aristocracy . There are many other problems with it. It neglects for example the fundamental exploitative capitalist relations between core and periphery that existed for several hundred years before the "imperialist" phase, calling into question the claim that Lenin is describing something truly unique. What Lenin regards as the wave of colonization is actually an intensification in colonialism. It therefore appears, contrary to Lenin, that "imperialism" is a continuation of the same fundamental system of colonial domination not a new phase of capitalist development. Second, capitalism was not undermined in the period that most closely approximates the conditions Lenin claimed would prompt a socialist revolution in the core states

Oh one final thing your comment on "this this silly little simplistic theory" contained in the article posted here perhaps you ought to do a bit oif reading Lenin yourself. See for example this in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism:

Obviously, out of such enormous super-profits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their “own” country) it is possible to bribe their labour leaders and an upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And the capitalists of the “advanced” countries do bribe them: they bribe them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.
This stratum of bourgeoisified workers or “labour aristocracy”, who have become completely petty-bourgeois in their mode of life, in the amount of their earnings, and in their point of view, serve as the main support of the Second International and, in our day, the principal social (not military) support of the bourgeoisie. They are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, the real carriers of reformism and chauvinism.


This is ironic for the reason spelt out here

The most important counter-example is the Russian working class in the early 20th century. The backbone of Lenin’s Bolsheviks (something he was most definitely aware of) were the best paid industrial workers in the Russian cities - skilled machinists in the largest factories. Lower paid workers, such as the predominantly female textile workers, were generally either unorganized or apolitical (until the beginnings of the revolution) or supported the reformist Mensheviks.
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1110

[robbo203]

Hundreds of thousands were invovled and the Febuary revolution began while Lenin was still out of the country so I don't think one can claim that it was merely a small group led by Lenin.


I didnt say it was. Yes of course there were hundreds of thousands of workers involved in the Russian Revolution and large numbers of them supported the Bolsheviks. In fact the Bolsheviks experienced very rapid growth after the February revolution which markedly changed the composition of the Party itself

However, I keep on coming back to this point - the nature of a revolution is not determined by the nature of agents who carry it out. The nature of a revolution in the end is determined by its outcome

This is a point that Marx elucidated very well

If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality" , 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm)

Marx could well have been desrcibing the Russian revolution here

[Dimentio]

While not entirely factually correct, it is true that socialism has de-facto worked as a method of strengthening the state authority and creating industrially centralised nations in formerly backward regions. What is characteristic for marxist-leninist or authoritarian socialist governments have been the expansion of state power, the establishment of a bureaucratic establishment to replace earlier feudal, local, imperial, colonial or tribal elites and the centralisation of productive forces with the purpose to achieve industrialisation.

In some ways, socialism has worked as a 20th century equivalent to the 16th and 17th century "state protestant" reform projects in Europe. If Gustav Vasa or Henry VIII had been 20th century figures, they would most likely have been self-proclaimed "glorious leaders of a people's socialist revolution".

[KC]

Edit

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is a terrible article. Lenin never specified the specific relation between capital and state, and left it to presumptions and abstractions. It was from later interpretation that this imperialism/anti-imperialism dichotomy came to be in its concrete form. It is funny, though, because such ideas have more in common with Kautsky/Luxemburg than Bukharin/Hilferding/Lenin.

This article is putting as many words into Lenin's mouth as those third-worldists and "anti-imperialists" that interpret his pamphlet in the same way.

I notice that Bukharin and Hilferding aren't even mentioned in this article. I think that shows how intellectually bankrupt its author really is. The fact that he's attacking Lenin when these weren't even Lenin's original assertions shows that we can't really take the author's argument seriously.

This article first distorts what Lenin wrote, second does not even address the wealth of material behind his popular outline, third does not even address the real problems with imperialism theory as laid out by the classical Marxists (much less an analysis) and fourth doesn't even offer a solution to those problems. It seems to me that this article was simply written to attack Lenin and the Bolsheviks. I don't see how that's productive in any way towards developing a coherent theory of imperialism or in any way at all, really.

Funny you're bashing, in a one-liner, the same person who introduced what was reiterated in the "popular outline" into Marxism a few years before Hobson did. :(

[KC]

Edit

[robbo203]

I've already said this: Lenin did not develop any of this. This was not "his" theory. This was all developed by earlier writers (i.e. Hobson/Hilferding/Bukharin). So to talk about "Lenin's theory" makes absolutely no fucking sense because he didn't have one.

Have you not heard of any of these?
Hobson, J.A. Imperialism: A Study (http://marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/index.htm) (1902)
Hilferding, Rudolf. Finance Capital (http://marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1910/finkap/index.htm) (1910)
Bukharin, Nikolai. Imperialism and World Economy (http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/index.htm) (1915)

Hmm, interesting that all of these were published prior to Lenin's pamphlet, which was written in 1916 and published in 1917. Even more interesting is the fact that Lenin titled his pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline. Do you really think that if he was going to put forward a theory of imperialism that he would do so in a popular outline? Of course not!

So both the historical record and Lenin's own intentions show that Lenin did not have a theory of imperialism and was merely outlining the work of Hobson/Hilferding/Bukharin in order to popularize it.

So according to you where I have erred is in supposing that Lenin put forward a "theory of imperialism". No he didnt, you say . he merely put forward a "popular outline". This is pedantry gone bonkers. Check out the literature and you will find thousands of references to "Lenin's theory of imperialism". But obviously all these academics have got it wrong according to you and you alone have got it correct. Bully for you!


Of course Lenin drew on previous writers like Hobson , Hilferding and Bukharin. So what? No theory has ever been developed in the history of ideas within a complete vacuum. Marx drew copiously on the theories of economists and philosophers before him

I doubt very much that Lenin when writing his pamphlet on Imperialism did so as a mere academic treatise, a popularisation of the works of others. He was writing it for a political reason. And the point you overlook in your bizarre claim that Lenin did not have a theory of impeiralism is that he did not simply reproduce the views of others like Hobson et al but was critical of some aspects of their views. He called Kautsky's theory of "ultraimperialism", reactionary and criticised Hobson for adopting a "petty bourgeois point of view" in protesting against the "inevitability of imperialism" argument, and in urging the necessity of "increasing the consuming capacity" of the people (under capitalism!). (Chapter IX Critique of Imperialism). In short, this was hardly a case of just presenting a popular outline of imperialist theories but of actually engaging with them theoretically.

It should finally be mentioned that your suggestion that Lenin contributed nothing to the theory of imperialism would not find much support among leninologists. I refer you to an article by Amiya Kumar Bagchi "Towards a Correct Reading of Lenin's Theory of Imperialism" (Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 31 (Jul. 30, 1983) ) which explicitly attacks those who denigrate Lenins theory on the grounds that there is nothing in it that cannot be found in the writings of others. Bagchi maintains that Lenin did make certain original contributions to the theory of imperialism (though whether these are sound is quite another matter) even if he did rely also on the works of others.

Since you haven't substantiated your claims in any way I am at a loss to know how you could possibly have come to such an ...er.. eccentric conclusion that Lenin did not have a theory of imperialism

[KC]

Edit

[robbo203]

Lenin's pamphlet, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, is the most famous Marxist work on imperialism. It was, for me, a surprising discovery that it makes little or no contribution to the development of a theory of imperialism. Its theoretical content is slight and derives from Hilferding, Bukharin and Hobson.

This should not, perhaps, be a surprise. The work is a pamphlet (and Lenin describes it as such in his preface) not a substantial book, it is subtitled 'A Popular Outline', and Lenin says in the first paragraph that

what has been said of imperialism during the last few years, especially in an enormous number of magazine and newspaper articles, and also in the resolutions, for example, of Chemnitz and Basle congresses which took place in the autumn of 1912, has scarcely gone beyond the ideas expounded or, more exactly, summed up by [Hilferding and Hobson]. (Imperialism, p.442)

Lenin, was, it seems, not claiming to be doing more than to gather together this material. This 'popular outline' is a kind of work that has an honourable and important part in Marxist literature: a factual survey of the current situation together with a summary of the results of theoretical analysis (though not the detailed theoretical argument itself), designed to provide a basis for political decisions.

To argue that the work contains no important theoretical innovations is not, therefore, a criticism of Lenin, but of the orthodox Marxist tradition which has turned the work into a sacred text. To treat any work as sacred is a thoroughly unscientific attitude; to treat a minor work (with the weaknesses which this one has) as sacred is also a serious lapse of judgement.

-Brewer, Anthony. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. pp.108-109.


All that may be so but it doesnt in any way validate your absurd claim that Lenin did not have a "theory" of imperialism. He did put forward such a theory even if the bulk of the ingredients came from elsewhere and I note you have shifted your ground somewhat by conceding that Lenin might have made some (albeit "little" ) contribution to the development of a theory of imperialism after all.

Saying that Lenin had a theory of imperialism is not of course treating it as a "sacred text". In fact I dont think Lenin's theory on the whole is a very convincing one and there are several components of which I completely reject - particularly the labour aristocracy myth which Lenin got from Engels

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where did Kautsky do this?

And I was referring to his theory of ultra-imperialism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-history-theory-t124927/index.html?p=1627991 (titled "Imperialism and high finance: Kautsky builds on Engels to answer Bernstein")


The beauty about Kautsky's own "outline" is that it takes into consideration capitalist overproduction in consumer goods and services, while Lenin's did not.

Here also is Dick Geary's chapter on Kautsky and imperialism:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hyC8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=kautsky+marxist+imperialism+geary&source=bl&ots=vKNvaoZ_2y&sig=slzqGcZyYpiGm219D5CP92hKGu0&hl=en&ei=pWksS4TOLpSYsgPV5IHIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kautsky%20marxist%20imperialism%20geary&f=false


In fact Kautsky was, to my knowledge, the first Marxist to develop a fully coherent theory of economic Imperialism, as Hugo Haase pointed out to Kautsky's critics at the founding conference of the USPD at Gotha in 1917. What is more, Kautsky's claim to precedence rests not on his well-known "Theories of Crises" articles in Die Neue Zeit in 1901-2, which appeared just before J.A. Hobson's famous work on Imperialism (1902), but on articles written as early as 1884 in the same journal (which again preceded the earlier writings of Hobson on the subject).