Scientific Concept of Imperialism - 1
Lenin and Stalin on Imperialism and war
'The scientific concept of imperialism, moreover, is reduced to a sort of term of abuse applied to the immediate competitors, rivals, and opponents of imperialists.”*
Introduction
What really did Lenin mean by “scientific
concept of imperialism?
The concept of imperialism by
relying on one aspect of it remains to be an abstract notion, it is not the
precise meaning of the scientific concept-scientific definition of
imperialism. Only through the application of dialectic of Marxism to
the concept can one grasp the scientific definition of imperialism.
The definition of “imperialism” used in our time in order to determine if a country is imperialist or not is overwhelmingly limited to its economic aspect, totally disregarding its “political-military” aspects. Lenin in his forward to Imperialism stated that “pamphlet was written with an eye to the tsarist censorship. Hence,” he said, ”I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution… I trust that this pamphlet will help the reader to understand the fundamental economic question, that of the economic essence of imperialism.” (1)
Lenin was pointing this out
saying; “imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear
in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts—to
which the above definition is limited..” (1)
“The law of uneven development in the period of imperialism” says Stalin, “ means the spasmodic development of some countries in relation to others, the rapid ousting of some countries from the world market by others, the periodic redistribution of the already divided world in the order of military clashes and military catastrophes... the fact that the world has already been divided among imperialist groups, there are no more “free”, unoccupied territories in the world, and in order to occupy new markets and sources of raw materials, in order to expand, one must take from others this territory by force… the unprecedented development of technology.. made it easier for some countries to leap ahead of others, for the more powerful countries to be ousted by less powerful but rapidly developing countries. The old distribution of spheres of influence between individual imperialist groups each time comes into conflict with the new alignment of forces on the world market… The world imperialist war was the first attempt to redistribute an already divided world. Needless to say, the first attempt at redistribution must be followed by a second attempt, for which preparatory work is already underway in the imperialist camp.” (2)
Defining imperialism as a “specific historic category” Lenin points out the mistakes of approach which coincidently mistakes of our days too. He states that Imperialism; “upholds the structure of finance capital; it subjugates the world to the domination of finance capital; in place of the old capitalist production relations, it puts the production relations of finance capital. Just as finance capitalism (which must not be confused with money capital, for finance capital is characterized by being simultaneously banking and industrial capital) is an historically limited epoch, confined only to the last few decades, so imperialism, as the policy of finance capital, is a specific historic category.”.. “war is a continuation of politics by other means… Politics itself, however, is an active "continuation." (3)
Scientific definition of
imperialism and application of it to a country
must consider, objective analysis and include the economic and
political aspects. Since war is a continuation of politics in different
forms, war history and war preparation, militarization of industry of any given country should be considered for
the analysis. And since waging war totally depends on the overall
strength of industry and militarization, the military industry of that
given country should be studied, especially to determine if it is mainly
defense focused or offense focused. Because, while the
defense-focused military industry is centered on its own territorial protection and deterrence, the
offense-focused military industry focuses on projecting power. While newly industrialized nations gradually adopt a balanced strategy, developing
both defensive and offensive technologies to ensure comprehensive national
security, its main military industry remains to be offensive only in short
distance, confined within surrounding territory . In contrast,
offense focused imperialist countries focuses on the ability to launch attacks quickly and
over extended distances. The ratio of the “balance” in offense and
defense may be a clear indication of whether it is for protection of it’s own territory and
deterrence or projecting power to other nations. Because for the defense
focused nations, defense is often rooted in protectionist needs, while limited
offensive capabilities are seen as deterrents against potential aggression.
For the offense focused nations, territorial defense capability, in most
cases minimized while the offensive capability is maximized for projecting power. This
analysis can give a better understanding and conclusion to determine if a
given country is imperialist or not in its scientific definition at any
given time. That does not mean, however, due to the uneven economic development
that given country will remain as such indefinitely. Marxist
Leninists do not evaluate based on the
forecast of what will happen, but based on the concrete data at any given time
on any subject. "Marxist must proceed not from what is possible, but from what is real". (33)
If we summarize;
Imperialist foreign economic
policy reveals itself first and foremost, with the application of all
possible types of prohibitions and limitations on imports and exports,
including the entire system of tariff policy, one sided trade
agreements, support for “national industries” abroad, premiums
of all sorts, the search for concessions and profitable lending opportunities,
etc., which is the essence of an imperialist economic policy.
Imperialist foreign political
policy reveals itself through direct plunder, or seizing the territory of
someone else’s “fatherland” directly or indirectly by use of force in different
shapes and forms for monopolistic exploitation by finance capital, which is the essence of an imperialist
political policy.
So the definition and
application of “imperialist” should be determined by the assessment of a
country’s foreign economic and political policy combined. Political policy of an
imperialist country implies use of force in various forms, more often,
in the form of wars whether it be proxy or direct war.
It was Lenin himself saying that
his "imperialism" and definition is limited to economic
aspect of it. In reference to Imperialism, and importance of this question
Lenin pointed out that;
“The problem of imperialism is not only a most essential one, but, we may say it is the most essential problem in that realm of economic science which examines the changing forms of capitalism in recent times. Everyone interested not only in economics but in any sphere of present-day social life must acquaint himself with the facts relating to this problem, as presented by the author in such detail on the basis of the latest available data. Needless to say that there can be no concrete historical analysis of war, if that analysis does not have for its basis a full understanding of the nature of imperialism, both from its economic and political aspects. Without this, it is impossible to approach an understanding of the economic and diplomatic situation of the last decades, and without such an understanding, it is ridiculous even to speak of forming a correct view on war. (2)
Not every war is imperialists and
not every use of force is in the form of a war. In his critique of Kautsky Lenin
summarized the policy in one word- use of force.
“”Imperialism is a striving for
annexations… It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically,
imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction... The
essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of
imperialism from its economics…Finance capital and the trusts do not
diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various
parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed,
what other solution of the contradictions can be found under capitalism
than that of force?” (1)
Here too, Lenin stresses the direct
connection between economics and politics, between exploitation and violence and reaction in its foreign policy
for the definition of imperialism. Bukharin in his book which the
introduction is written by Lenin, deals with the definitions of imperialism.
He states;
"The second very widespread
"theory" of imperialism defines it as the policy of conquest
in general… Simple as this theory may be, it is absolutely untrue.
It is untrue because it "explains" everything, i.e., it
explains absolutely nothing. “
“Every policy of the ruling classes ("pure" policy, military policy, economic policy) has a perfectly definite functional significance… War serves to reproduce definite relations of production. War of conquest serves to reproduce those relations on a wider scale. Simply to define war, however, as conquest is entirely insufficient, for the simple reason that in doing so we fail to indicate the main thing, namely, what production relations are strengthened or extended by the war, what basis is widened by a given "policy of conquest… Bourgeois science does not see and does not wish to see this. It does not understand that a basis for the classification of various "policies" must exist in the social economy out of which the "policies" arise. " (3)
An abstract repetition of “war is
a continuation of politics by other means”, as if it explains everything
is a common ready-made solution used to all questions of wars,
however, without actually studying the given “politics” itself
under that given concrete conditions. Without studying foreign
economic and political policy of a given
country at a given period of time classifying a country as “imperialist” is against the sole of Marxism Leninism, and
in most cases incorrect labeling because
it only considers the economic
definition of imperialism. It does consider and explains absolutely nothing about the political
aspects of the definition without which the definition and application of
it - labeling cannot be correct.
Economic definition of imperialism
Merging of Finance capital with industries
Internationalization of Finance and Financial Institutions
Deindustrialization and emergence of Military industry as primary industry
Weaponizing the financial, trade, tech and information industries for subjugation
Converting a “peacetime economy”
into a “war economy”
Using force for subjugation and plunder as an inevitable policy
Bellicose imperialism and war
Conclusion
Attachments
How the imperialist wars in our technologic era differs in its forms?
Notes