Scientific concept of Imperialism- Economic definition of imperialism
Scientific Concept of Imperialism
Economic definition of
imperialism
“ensuring the maximum capitalist
profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the
population of a given country, through the enslavement and systematic robbery
of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and finally,
through wars and the militarization of the national economy used to
ensure the highest profits.” (19)
Imperialism,
or monopoly capitalism, is the highest and last stage in the development of the
capitalist mode of production. The transition from pre‐monopoly capitalism to monopoly
capitalism taking place during the last third of the 19th century, finally took
shape by the beginning of the 20th century.
“Thus, the basic economic law of capitalism ‐ the law of surplus value ‐ in the period of imperialism further developed and concretized.” Under pre‐monopoly capitalism the dominance of free competition led to an equalization of the rate of profit of individual capitalists, under imperialism the monopolies ensure for themselves a monopolistically high, maximum profit. It is the maximum profit that is the engine of monopoly capitalism.” (31)
It
is important to note here that “Monopolies” generally refer to single
entities controlling the entire market for a given particular goods
or services. “Trusts”, “cartels” etc., refer to combination of companies
controlling the substantial portion of market for goods and services. Financial
oligarchy rules trusts; the financial oligarchy rules the country.
“The
objective conditions for obtaining maximum profits are created by the
establishment of the dominance of monopolies in certain branches of production.
At the stage of imperialism, the concentration and centralization of
capital reached its highest degree.
Because of this, the expansion of production required huge capital investments.
The fierce competitive struggles between gigantic enterprises brought
about the dominance of finance capital in monopolization of industries. The pursuit of maximum profit by the
monopolies lead to an extreme aggravation of all the contradictions of
capitalism. ” (31)
Lenin
in his article
“The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It”, stated; ”Everybody talks
about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism…” In
his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin details its
definition of imperialism that includes the basic features:
(1)
the concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that
it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2)
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation,
on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy;
(3)
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities
acquires exceptional importance.” (3)
I
have removed the 4th and 5th definition in this section
for it was related to the “imperialists” of that given era which cannot be
applied to new era for the purpose of defining new “imperialists”. Due to
the law of uneven economic development new “imperialist” countries
(in its economic definition) emerge
against the old-victorious ones. As Stalin noted; “The redistribution
of the world and spheres of influence, carried out as a result of the last
imperialist war, has already managed to become "obsolete".
Some new countries have come forward.. A furious struggle is going on for
sales markets, for markets for the export of capital, for sea and land roads to
these markets, for a new redivision of the world… the growth of all these
contradictions means the growth of the crisis of world capitalism, despite the
fact of stabilization, a crisis incomparably deeper than the crisis
before the last imperialist war… It is not surprising that imperialism is
preparing for a new war, seeing in it the only way to resolve this crisis.”
(16)
As
far as condition 3 is concerned, one has to pay attention and make the
distinction between exporting goods, services and exporting capital- money flowing
out of the country for investments, loans, or other capital flows. Based on
this condition, one easily can end up labeling Japan, Norway and so many new
developed countries with their monopoly capitalist industries as “imperialist”.
They are “economically” imperialists who plunder under the military and
political shadow of “Imperialists” in
its scientific term. So, they are not really imperialist in their combined
definition. Similarly, one should come to the conclusion that the US is not
an imperialist country because while historically, once the U.S. was a
dominant capital exporter, it is now a significant capital importer.
In this sense even the 3rd condition is not sufficient enough
to determine if a country is imperialist or not.
Although
not contradicting Lenin, arguments made that “what differs from
Lenin’s era is that the development of information and communications
technologies, foreign direct investment and international trade and industrial
transfers have reached new heights, to the degree of internationalization of
production and circulation overshadowing the past. The capital is
being redistributed globally from production to circulation. This
brought about concentration of capital and lead to multinational finance
capital corporations. These corporations developed links with the rest of
the finance capital and formed financial monopoly organizations. They controlled
and run the international production, trade, banking, transactions and exchange
values. They have shaped the world economic and political system
aligned with their needs in order to eliminate any barriers whether it be a
country or an institution-organisation.
Lenin had foreseen this development
and had stated that ; “we see the rapid expansion of a close network of
channels which cover the whole country, centralizing all capital and all
revenues, transforming thousands and thousands of scattered economic
enterprises into a single national, capitalist, and then into a world
capitalist economy.” (1)
Contrary
to the bourgeois liberal and neo-communist arguments, the essence of
imperialism is unchanged. The substance still remains to be the monopoly capital’s domination. The change is only
its forms and methods evolved. It is not a “new stage” of imperialism in its
essence but a higher stage with the same essence. It does not break Lenin’s
framework but deepens it. In this higher stage it accelerates capital
export (Lenin’s Feature 3) through the Internationalization of Production, finance
capital (Feature 2) unshackles from
national borders. Modern iterations of "international monopolist
combines" digital cartels (Feature 4) first among the existing (previous)
imperialists and due to the uneven economic development law the newly emerged
ones gradually forms their own. In this higher stage, political supremacy is
carried out via Digital and Financial Tools through the control of
international institutions like SWIFT.
This
process of reaching a higher stage has
been realized through Merging Finance capital with industries which necessitated
the formation of State capitalism and the militarization of industry, and
developing its economy in war footing. That development helped to create
and followed by Internationalization
of Finance and Financial Institutions.
State Capitalism
“In
the beginning the state is the sole organization of the ruling class. Then other
organizations begin to spring up, their numbers multiplying especially in the
epoch of finance capitalism. The state is transformed from the sole
organization of the ruling class into one of its organizations, its
distinction being that it has the most general character of all such
organizations. Finally, the third stage arrives, in which
the state swallows up these organizations and once more becomes the
sole universal organization of the ruling class, with an internal,
technical division of labor. The once-independent organizational
groupings become the divisions of a gigantic state mechanism.” (28)
“As
the power of individual capitalist organizations grows stronger, as
their influence expands, competition in the world market becomes more and
more fierce and destructive. Each of the competing parties starts relying on the resources of entire
countries and, moreover, acts hand in hand with powerful state
organizations. On the world market, as well as on national markets, the
struggle between powerful capitalist trusts is waged along three main lines:
1) the struggle for markets,2) struggle for raw material markets, 3) the
struggle for capital investment markets.
These
competitions are closely connected with each other and represent the three
sides of the single capitalist competition. Competition transferring
to the world market, leads to the transformation of “peaceful” competition
into a competition where the force is used, lead to the birth of
imperialism as an inevitable policy of
modern states.” (32)
The
organizational process, which embraces more and mere branches of the “national
economy” through the creation of combined enterprises and through the organizational
role of the banks, has led to the conversion of each developed
“national system” of capitalism into a “state-capitalist trust.”[30]
“On
the other hand, the process of development of the productive forces of the world
economy drives these “national” systems into the most acute conflicts in their
competitive struggle for the world market. These two basic facts of
contemporary capitalist reality provide us with the key to understanding the “state”
tendencies of contemporary finance capitalism. Why was the bourgeoisie
really so individualistic in the past? Principally because the basic
category of economic life was the private-economic unit, which
confronts all the others as a competitor. The interrelation of people, or the
internal structure of the bourgeoisie as a class, was analogous to this
interrelation among enterprises. As a class the bourgeoisie came out against
the proletariat. But internally, within the limits of the class itself, each
member stood opposed to the other as a competitor. Each hoped to unseat
his opponent by relying upon his own forces, the interplay between
them being positive for the “whole.” But it was not only separate enterprises
and individual people who emerged as the bearers of individualism. The
division of the ruling classes into different groups also played an analogous
role: above all the division into a landed and an industrial bourgeoisie,
followed by lesser divisions between the representatives of raw material
production and manufacturers, commercial and usurer capital, etc. The
epoch of finance capital puts an end to this state of affairs, the
contradiction between different subgroups of the ruling classes also largely
disappears. By collaborating with one another, almost every category
of the bourgeoisie is transformed into the recipients of dividends, the
category of interest becoming the general form of expression for all so-called
“nonlabor incomes.” The holy of holies for every bourgeois (and landlord) becomes
the bank to which he and his kind are tied by a thousand threads.
Thus, a
system of collective capitalism is created, which to a certain extent
is opposed to the entire structure of capitalism in its earlier forms.
The financial oligarchy rules the trusts; financial oligarchy rules the
country. A multitude of various types of bourgeois organizations
emerges, and they overlap one another in the most diverse realms. The separate
representatives of the ruling classes take their seats in different cells, which
grow within definite limits, work out the collective will, and pose and resolve
common tasks. Finally, the requirements of imperialist development
compel bourgeois society to mobilize all of its forces, to extend its
organization throughout the broadest possible context: the state absorbs
into itself the whole multitude of bourgeois organizations. ’(28)
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
regulations, 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 - Imperialist State. 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. 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. (28)
Thus, state
capitalism is the completed form of state-capitalist trust. The process of
organization gradually removes the anarchy of separate components of the
“national-economic” mechanism, placing the whole of economic life under
the iron heel of the militaristic state.
Summarizing
Lenin’s description of Imperialism’s
Parasitic Evolution to its highest stage; it has gone through; 1)
the emergence of industrial monopolies, monopolization stage, 2) merging of
Banks with industry, Finance Capital Fusion, 3) moving factories abroad, deindustrialization of home economies, Capital
Export, 4) funding arms production to
absorb surplus and project power, Militarized Reproduction, 5) detachment of capital from production,
living off speculation, debt, and rent, Financial Parasitism. Formation of a
"rentier state" as visibly seen in current U.S. and UK.
Lets summarize it;
Deindustrialization and
emergence of Military- Tech- Service industry as primary industries
The
triad of deindustrialization, militarization of industry, and
internationalization of finance capital represents the logical evolution of
monopoly capitalism in its imperialist stage, as analyzed by Lenin and later
Marxists.
Deindustrialization isn't an accidental development but stems from finance capital's pursuit of
higher returns abroad.
Financialization
of economy reflects itself in
Finance capital’s prioritizing in quick
and high return speculative activities
(stocks, derivatives, real estate) over long term low return productive
investments. In general profits from manufacturing is 3–5%, profits from finance is 15–20%
Militarization of economy compensates
for industrial decline by creating guaranteed markets for monopolies. Internationalized
finance completes this trifecta by detaching capital from national
productive bases.
Lenin foresaw this trajectory. He said that "imperialism is parasitic,
decaying capitalism moving toward universal crisis." The
deindustrialization-militarization-financialization triad represents capitalism’s
retreat from productive progress, It relies more on force and fraud to sustain
profits.
Conclusion for the
section
It
is the hegemony of the US based finance capital over these centralized
finance capital and financial monopoly organizations and its currency
that makes the US an imperialist country in its economic definition
; not because it exports capital. Under these conditions of international
finance capital monopoly, its hegemony and control, any “export of capital” by any other
country, regardless of its amount, does not make any country “imperialist” (in
its scientific meaning) even in some
case, in its economic sense, as long as
the hegemony and control of the
US based finance capital reigns over the entire trade and banking
transactions. At best we may call them sub-imperialist countries fitting
only the economic definition of the term.
It
is the deindustrialization and military industry of the US and its foreign policy directly related
to its needs for the plunder of the natural resources of other countries and
the need for a world that is
constantly unstable due to conflicts and wars in order to feed itself that
makes up the “political definition” of imperialism.
“Capitalist
society” says Bukharin, “is unthinkable without armaments, as it
is unthinkable without wars. And just as it is true that not
low prices cause competition but, on the contrary, competition causes low
prices, it is equally true that not the existence of arms is the prime
cause and the moving force in wars (although wars are
obviously impossible without arms) but, on the contrary, the inevitableness
of economic conflicts conditions the existence of arms. This is why in our
times, when economic conflicts have reached an unusual degree of intensity, we
are witnessing a mad orgy of armaments. Thus the rule of
finance capital implies both; imperialism (in its economic sense E.A) and militarism (in its political sense
E.A). In this sense militarism is no less a
typical historic phenomenon than finance capital itself… even
where there are relatively equal economic structures..”
(3)
As
a conclusion, to determine and label a country as imperialist solely relying on the economic definition of
imperialism divorced from its political definition is not a Marxist Leninist approach, but an
infantile one, or at best, some one
who is oblivious to dialectics of Marxism, and Marxist-Leninist theories.
Lets
study the “political” definition of imperialism starting with “militarization
and war”.
Political definition of Imperialism
Converting
a “peacetime economy” into a “war economy”
Using
force for subjugation and plunder as an inevitable policy
Bellicose
imperialism and war
Historical Types of Imperialist wars in modern times
Wars
during the time of Marx and Engels and their attitudes
First
World War – Lenin’s time and his attitude to the war
Second
World War – Stalin's time and his attitude to the war
Conclusion
Attachments
How
the imperialist wars in our technologic era differs in its forms?
Based
on the scientific concept of imperialism, Is China an imperialist country?
Notes
* Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet,
Imperialism, and the World Economy
