Lenin and Bukharin's theories of imperialism

[zubovskyblvd]

Comrades,

I'm shortly going to be doing some in-depth writing on Marxist theories of imperialism, and for part of this I'm attempting to evaluate the difference between Lenin and Bukharin when it comes to their theories in this area. At a basic level, would it be fair to argue that Bukharin was too 'economist' in his arguments, and that it was Lenin who fused these economic ideas with "every political problem of the present epoch", to quote Lukacs (1970, p.41). For instance, Bukharin writes that imperialism is "the policy of finance capital" (1966, p.114) and equates these two things very heavily, whereas Lenin placed his ideas more firmly in terms of the outcome being geopolitcal struggle, and hence war.

Apologies if this is a tad confused as I'm just starting out with my reading in this area, although I'm fairly familiar with Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.

References:

Bukharin, N (1966) Imperialism and World Economy
Lukacs, G (1970) Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thoughts

[Blake's Baby]

I think you have to critique each on its merits before you decide that Bukharin was too 'economistic'. I think you can safely argue that Lenin thought he was too economistic but do you actually agree or are you merely repeating what Lenin thought?

I'd recommend Luxemburg on imperialism too - The National Question and Autonomy is an important collection. Could provide some interesting counter-arguments.

[Alf]

My impression is that Bukharins book goes deeper than Lenin's (as does Luxemburg's analysis in The Accumulation of Capital) in seeking to locate the imperialist dynamic in the contradictions of the accumulation process (Bukharin talks about the problem of the falling rate of profit and of the market). But perhaps more important is that Bukharin, much more than Lenin who was still focusing on private monopolies as characteristic of imperialism, saw that the new phase in the life of capitalism was characterised by state capitalism. The following passage from 'The theory of the imperialist state' (1915) is a prescient portrayal of how capitalism has subsequently organised itself, including in the Stalinist regimes:
“In total contrast to the state in the epoch of industrial capitalism, the imperialist state is characterized by an extraordinary increase in the complexity of its functions and by an impetuous incursion into the economic life of society. It reveals a tendency to take over the whole productive sphere and the whole sphere of commodity circulation. Intermediate types of mixed enterprises will be replaced by pure state regulation, for in this way the centralization process can advance further. All the members of the ruling classes (or, more accurately, of the ruling class, for finance capitalism gradually eliminates the different subgroups of the ruling classes, uniting them in a single finance-capitalist clique) become shareholders, or partners in a gigantic state-enterprise. From being the preserver and defender of exploitation, the state is transformed into a single, centralized, exploiting organization that is confronted directly by the proletariat, the object of exploitation. In the same way as market prices are determined by the state, the workers are assigned a ration sufficient for the preservation of labour power. A hierarchically constructed bureaucracy fulfils the organizing functions in complete accord with the military authorities, whose significance and power steadily grow. The national economy is absorbed into the state, which is constructed in a military fashion and has at its disposal an enormous, disciplined army and navy. In their struggle the workers must confront all the might of this monstrous apparatus, for their every advance will be aimed directly against the state: the economic and the political struggle cease to be two categories, and the revolt against exploitation will signify a direct revolt against the state organization of the bourgeoisie”.

[soyonstout]

I agree that Bukharin's work is much more satisfying in respect to the statification of capitalism--I have Imperialism and World Economy but have only made it about 1/2 way through. I did however read a lot of Bukharin for a discussion of State Capitalism last January. You can also see that Bukharin was a bit ahead of Lenin on the question of the State during the war--he apparently thought Bukharin's positions in his writings on Imperialism were almost semi-anarchist at first, but by the time he wrote "State and Revolution" he had come over closer to Bukharin's (and Pannekoek's) view of the State.

However, I do think that Bukharin over-emphasizes the importance of finance capital in the process of what he calls the statification of capitalism--he was quite correct in connection to some of the central capitalist powers but we've seen since the end of WWI that state capitalist tendencies can be inaugurated by lots of different sectors--the military for example, and developmentalist nationalist leaders, etc.

What are you thoughts about Lenin's ideas?

-soyons tout

[zubovskyblvd]

Having had more of a chance to engage with Bukharin I'd agree with the above posters that his work is deeper and more satisfying, yet seems to suffer from a certain detatchment to the 'situation on the ground', if you will. Lenin didn't express origional ideas in Imperialism but rather gathered what had already been written about it and turned it into a blazing polemic, which is perhaps its greatest strength.

As for their differences, both Lenin and Bukharin were inspired by each others' work on the question of imperialism, so there doesn't seem to be anything substantial to be taken from that line of research.

[gilhyle]

Im not sure what 'satisfying' means....Bukharin's persepctive was wrong, he expected things that never happened and were never going to happen. His perspective was undialiectical in the sense that having seen a trend he anticipated that that trend would be realised as a social formation. His failed to understand the countervailing trends.