'Imperialism: The highest stage of Capitalism'

[Deliverous]

Lenin highlights in 'Imperialism: The highest stage of Capitalism' that the trigger of most wars are motivated primarily by the search for markets. Yet imperialism is much older than Capitalism. Therefore, does it really make sense to proclaim that imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism, when imperialism preceded Capitalism rather than resulted from it?

Discuss.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lenin's theory of imperialism is different from the imperialism of antiquity. The kind you are thinking of is where kings and lords and emperors would carve up large empires for land whereas Lenin's theory describes how capitalism functions in relation to the market.

(To give a very brief overview)

[Vorchev]

Yea, I don't think Lenin was talking about imperialism in general. He was just talking about imperialism as a phase of capitalism.

From my familiarity, socialism doesn't really concern itself with pre-capitalist empire (for better or worse).

[Art Vandelay]

Yea, I don't think Lenin was talking about imperialism in general. He was just talking about imperialism as a phase of capitalism.

From my familiarity, socialism doesn't really concern itself with pre-capitalist empire (for better or worse).

Marx studied history extensively so I am not sure where you are getting that from.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Marx studied history extensively so I am not sure where you are getting that from.

Lenin is the person in question... and even if he did study history extensively it wouldn't have much bearing on his theory.

[Art Vandelay]

Lenin is the person in question... and even if he did study history extensively it wouldn't have much bearing on his theory.

But I was referring to the comment about socialism not addressing pre-capitalist societies all that much; which is obviously false. Just clearing that up and not really addressing op. Sorry if off topic.

[wsg1991]

not just more markets , and can be to ensure capture some resources , trade Hegemony , control of certain critical areas , and might be even eliminating future threats .

[Vorchev]

But I was referring to the comment about socialism not addressing pre-capitalist societies all that much; which is obviously false. Just clearing that up and not really addressing op. Sorry if off topic.

Of course he addressed pre-capitalist society, but can you highlight where Marx discussed pre-capitalist empire?

[Lokomotive293]

Lenin highlights in 'Imperialism: The highest stage of Capitalism' that the trigger of most wars are motivated primarily by the search for markets. Yet imperialism is much older than Capitalism. Therefore, does it really make sense to proclaim that imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism, when imperialism preceded Capitalism rather than resulted from it?

Discuss.

Well, Lenin says the shortest definition of Imperialism is "monopoly capitalism". So, what happened at the end of the 19th century is that a new quality of capitalism emerged, that free competition was replaced by monopolies, that that resulted in the banks becoming more and more powerful, until bank capital and industrial capital merged and became finance capital, and the rule of capital as a whole was replaced by the rule of finance capital.
Lenin then describes how in the most developed countries, we get a surplus of capital, which has to be exported to other countries, preferably underdeveloped ones, as profit is high there. That leads to the capitalist monopolies, and, in the end, the few most powerful nations, dividing, and always trying to redivide the world between themselves.

Now, of course colonies and dependent nations existed before capitalism. However, what is special about Imperialism is that it's base is the monopoly. So, colonies existed, under different economic systems, but with a completely different economic base. Lenin actually talks about that in his work:


Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” [5] Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital.

The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of competing, to buy up, for example, ironfields, oilfields, etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitors, including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies.

[Vorchev]

Something is missing with that description, Random_Girl. Monopolies don't have to compete. Sometimes, they relax and deliberately reduce production in order to drive up prices. On the international level, you see this a lot under cartels where firms agree to divvy up market share just to retain domestic hierarchy.

This would especially be the case in pre-capitalist empire where industrial capitalism wasn't available to make international competition feasible. For example, Rome died from internal decline chipping away border guards from Gothic barbarians, not from Gothic barbarians themselves.

[Catma]

I want to know why Lenin thought Imperialism was the highest form of capitalism. I know he had ideas about state capitalism... but are state capitalism and imperialism supposed to be on the same continuum? I think they are independent, and the highest form of capitalism would be imperialist state capitalism.