Vlad vs. Rosa

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg had two seemingly different theories of imperialism.

Lenin's theory was put forth in his short book, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". He drew on ideas of the Fabian socialist Hobson, Rudolph Hilferding, and a few ideas of Kautsky although he disagreed w/Kautsky's idea of "super imperialism". Lenin described how highly concentrated finance capital had come to dominate and control capitalism by the very late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US, Germany, France, and to some extent Britain.

As I understand imperialism resulted from an over supply of national capital desperately seeking a return not available in conditions of monopoly capitalism that developed after Marx's time. Lenin also described how an overabundance of finance capital had been used to "buy off" the working class leading to a labor aristocracy willing to go along with imperialism..

Lenin's theory pretty much became the standard explanation of imperialism held by most communists today.Some people have criticized his theory as being unMarxist and as leading to Third Worldism.

Rosa Luxemburg had a different theory in the "Accumulation of Capital". As I understand her, Rosa L. believed an ongoing "primitive capital accumulation" was necessary, that is a continued unequal exchange with the Third World, in order to keep the system operating. Its not the concentration of finance capital but an integral aspect of capitalism itself that's behind this. Both David Harvey and Loren Goldner use versions of Rosa L's theory to explain the current crisis.

I realize I'm not explaining this well at all.

Who's theory is better, Rosa, Lenin, or are they both correct?

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't understand, how is the theory of Third Worldism "un-Marxist"? (Third Worldism in the original Leninist sense, not the later distorted sense)

Third Worldism merely describes an objective condition, it attacks no-one and blames no section of the working class or their subjective revolutionary potential.

I can't believe there are people here who actually associates Third Worldism with terrorist activities like 9-11. Later distortions of a particular theory cannot be blamed on the original correct form of the theory, no more than one can blame Mao for the CCP today, or blame Trotsky for those third-campists who became neo-cons, or indeed blame Marx himself for Pol Pot.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Third Worldism is broader than Marxism. i meant by this uncritically supporting the Bandung non-aligned movement from the 50s to the 80s and today supporting people like Achmanijad.

[Zanthorus]

It should be noted that Lenin's theory of the labour aristocracy is meant to describe only a minority of the western working-class, and is for the most part a device used to explain the existence of social-imperialist trends within the workers' movement. Personally, I think it's somewhat useless, as "social-imperialism" originated in the various Fabian-type "evolutionary socialists". Bernstein, I think, defended colonialism, for example. The Fabian's certainly defended British Imperialism. Lenin should've just stuck to his original insight in What is to be Done? that "Bernsteinism" resulted from the entrace of "academic" strata into the workers' movement. Regardles, Lenin still thought of the majority of the western working-class as revolutionary, hence why he didn't get much comfort from Stalin's support during the Brest-Litovsk debates, as the latter was skeptical about the possibilities of international revolution.

It's been a while since I read either, but I don't think either Lenin or Luxemburg was entirely correct. Luxemburg's theory is certainly more problematic in terms of maintaining a commitment to a Marxist political economy, since her theory ignores Marx's reproduction diagrams which prove the possibility of production for the sake of production (Hence refuting the various theories which try to find the source of capitalist crisis in underconsumptionism).

[Queercommie Girl]

Third Worldism is broader than Marxism. i meant by this uncritically supporting the Bandung non-aligned movement from the 50s to the 80s and today supporting people like Achmanijad.

I just meant Third Worldism that is Marxist.

[Queercommie Girl]

Regardles, Lenin still thought of the majority of the western working-class as revolutionary,

So does Marxist Third Worldism. It does not write-off the subjective revolutionary potential of the working class in the West, only that capitalism, as Lenin correctly noted, is more likely to "break at the weakest link".

[Ocean Seal]

Luxembourg's main theory is that capital is gained from non-capitalistic markets (ie: Third World) and that the more efficient capitalist nations exploit the third world by either dominating them militarily or by simply turning them into markets where the imperialist nations can buy their raw materials and the such. Then these non-liquid assets are transferred to the bourgeoisie who use them to in turn empower themselves and leave the third world further behind. Additionally she also states that the separation of businesses and the government are what allows this exploitation to continue, but that this exploitation will eventually dig the Third World nations out of a pre-capitalistic state and this will cause global capital to fail.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Personally, I think it's somewhat useless, as "social-imperialism" originated in the various Fabian-type "evolutionary socialists". Bernstein, I think, defended colonialism, for example. The Fabian's certainly defended British Imperialism. Lenin should've just stuck to his original insight in What is to be Done? that "Bernsteinism" resulted from the entrace of "academic" strata into the workers' movement. Regardless, Lenin still thought of the majority of the western working-class as revolutionary, hence why he didn't get much comfort from Stalin's support during the Brest-Litovsk debates, as the latter was skeptical about the possibilities of international revolution.

Proof of Stalin's skepticism? Surely even he read Kautsky's The Road to Power.


It's been a while since I read either, but I don't think either Lenin or Luxemburg was entirely correct. Luxemburg's theory is certainly more problematic in terms of maintaining a commitment to a Marxist political economy, since her theory ignores Marx's reproduction diagrams which prove the possibility of production for the sake of production (Hence refuting the various theories which try to find the source of capitalist crisis in underconsumptionism).

Harvey's accumulation by dispossession is superior to Luxemburg's schema of "normal" capitalism in the developed countries and outright barbarism in the colonies. It's also not too reliant upon dumping overproduced goods into the colonies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin's theory was put forth in his short book, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". He drew on ideas of the Fabian socialist Hobson, Rudolph Hilferding, and a few ideas of Kautsky although he disagreed w/Kautsky's idea of "super imperialism". Lenin described how highly concentrated finance capital had come to dominate and control capitalism by the very late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US, Germany, France, and to some extent Britain.

Lenin, Bukharin, Hilferding, and even Hobson - all of them drew their ideas on imperialism from Kautsky.

If certain, nation-based divisions of global labour are not as disproportionately immiserated in comparison to worldwide labour as a whole, it is because the iron law is devastating many other divisions of global labour, when considering:

1) Accumulations through dispossessions, from privatizations to intellectual property-as-theft monopolies;
2) Exports of commodities that “freely” result from the “social,” rampant wastages of wealth in the consumer goods and services market, otherwise known as anarchic overproduction and planned obsolescence;
3) The structure of modern business, being rife with consolidations at the top and littered with petit-bourgeois niches at the bottom – all for the sake of exercising as much monopoly power as permissible by anti-trust laws;
4) The further development of the credit system and the “free” capital market as a “social” whole through the expansion of financial leverage into ever more speculative forms;
5) Currency regimes and other monetary manipulations within bourgeois-capitalist states;
6) The global circulation of both labour and capital, including continuous imports of the latter which facilitates structural budget and trade deficits;
7) The ever-changing division of the global economy between privately-owned multinational enterprises and state-capitalist enterprises; and
8) Geopolitical considerations, especially competition for non-renewable sources of energy and other natural resources.

[scarletghoul]

Some people have criticized his theory as being unMarxist and as leading to Third Worldism.
One shouldn't criticise a theory for what it can lead to; whether the theory is true in its assessment of imperialism is what is more important.

[Zanthorus]

Proof of Stalin's skepticism? Surely even he read Kautsky's The Road to Power.

Robert Service's biography Trotsky discusses it in the chapter on Brest-Litovsk. Service has also written biographies of Lenin and Stalin, so I assume he at least vaguely knows what he's talking about here:


Lenin had few supporters. One was Stalin who argued that their was no geniune evidence of the imminence of revolution in the West... The contributions from Stalin and Zinoviev gave little comfort to Lenin. He distanced himself from Stalin's scepticism about European socialist revolution;

[Aesop]

Robert Service's biography Trotsky discusses it in the chapter on Brest-Litovsk. Service has also written biographies of Lenin and Stalin, so I assume he at least vaguely knows what he's talking about here:

Your quote/read works by robert service?

[Zanthorus]

Your quote/read works by robert service?

Well, yes. Service's biography of Trotsky was the only one in my local bookstore. I'm aware of the problems of his account, and I have borrowed and read Deutcher's trilogy from my local library, but I don't have the cash to keep buying books, and Service's book is the only work I have to hand by a proffesional historian which deals with aspects of the Russian revolution.

[Aesop]

Well, yes. Service's biography of Trotsky was the only one in my local bookstore. I'm aware of the problems of his account, and I have borrowed and read Deutcher's trilogy from my local library, but I don't have the cash to keep buying books, and Service's book is the only work I have to hand by a proffesional historian which deals with aspects of the Russian revolution.

Robert service's book is about painting trotsky has some blood brother in relation to stain. In which he tries to paint the picture that he is no better than trotsky. His book was a ideological attempt to dis-credit trotskyism and consequently revolutionary marxism.

In no way i am saying that trotsky is free from critical appraisal, balanced criticism is one thing but service is another.

Here is a review by the socialist party.
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/10/1401.html

[∞]

IDK Rosa only wrote :mad: 1000 PAGES ON IMPERIALISM BEFORE THE TERM WAS EVEN INVENTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Her work has been used to explain imperialism, this has no connection with the etymology of the word itself.

[ZeroNowhere]

IDK Rosa only wrote :mad: 1000 PAGES ON IMPERIALISM BEFORE THE TERM WAS EVEN INVENTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Lucien Sanial also wrote about imperialism without using the term. What's your point?

[Sexy Red]

Both are correct in their own respects and this issue greatly influenced me to merge Rosa's and Lenin's ideology's together.