Scientific concept of imperialism- “Political” definition of imperialism
“Political” definition of imperialism
What most analyzers
misses in their assessment and/or comparative studies of countries is the fact that Militarization requires
perpetual enemies (e.g., "terrorism,"
"authoritarian states") in order to feed its industry and economy.
The need for unending conflicts and wars shapes its foreign policy. This
makes up the core of the “political definition” of imperialism and comparative
study of “imperialist” countries that fit the “economic definition”.
Thus, the Political
definition of imperialist state may
be summarized as “the systematic militarization of the economy,
converting productive capacity into instruments of subjugation, while
financial/tech/trade systems are weaponized to sustain global dominance.”
What we have to keep in
mind is that neither Lenin nor Bukharin made core premise that
monopoly capitalism is unthinkable without wars as a “constant state” of imperialism
but a “tendency” based on or more
like depending on its economic
development and the level of the progress in its military industry, which has
been clarified in theory and practice by Stalin during the Second World War. Stalin's
concrete Analysis in 1935 was based
on this concrete situation of Uneven
Militarization within the imperialist countries.
Stalin’s observation
highlighted key differentiators among imperialist states and
considered in its assessment. (as we will see in his assessment in the section
of wars- 2nd WW)
He had come to the conclusion that the economies of Fascist States (Germany/Italy) was wholly subordinated to military needs. They succeeded building their economy in full war footing. However, as an inevitable consequence they were burning foreign reserves/raw materials for the development of military industry and rearmament. They were squandering all their crucial resources. That brought about the immediate aggression for territorial revanchism. Aggressive posturing.
Other Imperialist
Powers (UK, USA, France) on the hand were reorganizing their
industries to that direction but still retaining civilian sectors. They were preparing
for war but avoiding full economic conversion. They were preserving
their reserves of crucial resources. They
were rearming to protect their colonies, sources of raw materials and their
markets. Defensive posturing:
It is very crucial to understand
Stalin’s approach and classification to study the current situation and make
concrete assessment based on the concrete situation. He was pointing to the
fact that; 1) the imperialist states
occupy different stages of the war-economy spectrum based on the severity of
crisis they are in which makes them desperate while some others have
relative stability.
2) Severe crisis within
countries relying on their military industry necessitates conflicts and wars
while the others still makes profits from civilian markets requires stability
and peace.
3) While those who
already ” have” colonies, sources of raw
materials and their markets defend the status quo; those who "have-not"
seek redistribution through force.
“Using force for
subjugation and plunder as an inevitable policy; a continuation of policy in
different form – what actually is the policy? "War is the continuation of
politics by other", (i.e., violent) "means" (7)
“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.” (26)
Old imperialist
countries already have their “military industry” and ready for
a new war militarily. New ones are in the process of building their military
industry and getting ready for a new war. That’s why they choose the “appeasement
policy” against the ”old” as much as possible to do so. Here comes
the question of “policy” that is repeated abstractly without
answering the question of; what is the actual (domestic and
foreign) policy that is being followed by each belligerent
country before the war? Here comes the question of military
industrialization; is territorial defense focused (economically)
imperialist or offense focused (imperialist) for projecting power.
Imperialism and war are
inseparable twins. That is why the issue of
“imperialism” and attitude to it, cannot be studied independently from its
political aspect- that is (militarization of industry and) war-
in each given concrete condition and situation. Lenin was saying that “Abstract
theoretical reasoning may lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has
arrived .. by abandoning Marxism. It goes without saying that there can be
no concrete historical assessment of war, unless it is based on a
thorough analysis of the nature of imperialism, both in its
economic and political aspects.” (1) Connecting the two, Lenin
points out that “The character of a war and its success depend
chiefly upon the internal regime of the country that goes to war,
that war is a reflection of the internal policy conducted by
the given country before the war. “ (29)
That, dialectically
means, the attitude to “imperialism” will be different at different times.
There will be times, conditions, and situations where there is no “interests
of proletariat in general” but only the “interests of
proletariat” in particular. There will be times, conditions, and
situations where, because of the existence of a “general interests of
proletariat”, the interests of particular will be subordinated to the interests
of the general. In a constantly changing world the
conditions and situations will change, so the attitude to each war will have to be
changed.
For decades, for almost
half a century, the governments and the ruling classes of England, and France,
and Germany, and Italy, and Austria, and Russia, pursued a policy of
plundering colonies, of oppressing other nations, of suppressing the
working-class movement. It is this, and only this policy that
is being continued in the present war.
Modern militarism is
the result of capitalism. In both its forms it is the “vital
expression” of capitalism—as a military force used by the capitalist states
in their external conflicts and as a weapon in the hands of the ruling
classes for suppressing every kind of movement, economic and political, of
the proletariat. (6)
On war tendency of
imperialism
While it is accepted
that militarism/war is the result of capitalism, it is the Universal
Tendency of imperialism, as Stalin has shown, one has to make the dialectic
connection and the differentiation of the “law” with the existing conditions
and the concrete expression of the mentioned universal law.
Studying Stalin’s concrete
analysis; he does reiterate the universal law that “all imperialist states will
militarize”. But Stalin points out that
the pace and intensity of that militarization vary based on material conditions not only
within the given country but in international scale.
Stalin reiterates that the
war is inherent to monopoly capitalism. But he points out that its timing depends on internal crises
of each imperialist country and the intensity of the rivalry stage at a given
moment.
Stalin
reiterates that the Finance Capital fuels the war machine. But he points
out that the method of using force, subjugation differs based on the
economy, militarization and having reserves and resources of each “imperialist”
country. It will be different for those
who “have” and who “have-not”, for those
who are in crisis and those who are stable, for those who can provide cheap
resources without immediate war, and those who cannot. One will choose war
other will choose economic and political means.
Reading his speeches
and writings in direct connection we can see that Stalin has exposed the material
truth of the inevitability of war economies
in “imperialist” countries. Although
the militarization starts together with the state monopoly capitalism, once imperialist rivalry
intensifies, all capitalist states faces the fact; either militarize
or be subjugated. His phasing of history wasn’t mere differentiation but scientific
periodization: Phase 1 (1920s): "Peaceful"
imperialists (UK/US) dominate via finance capital, Phase 2 (1930s):
Crisis forces fascist states into total war economies. Phase 3 (1940s):
All imperialists fully militarize (WWII)
As a conclusion to tis
section, Lenin, Bukharin and Stalin were correct that Imperialism requires
militarization. However, as Stalin clearly observed and explained its expression
is uneven, unequal and may be in different forms.
Especially in our era of technology, weaponizing of trade, technology
and finance is how modern empires subjugate. That relatively ends when the imperialist rivalry intensifies, subjugation
by weaponizing the trade and other means becomes ineffective. Depending on the
balance of military power, the practice of subjugation changes its character –
to war, in our technological era, to proxy wars (we will take upon that issue
as an attachment later ).
So, the political definition of imperialism is Political imperialism which
reflects itself as structural conversion to war economy.
The scientific concept
of imperialism is, and made up of the unity of economic and political
definition in order to be correct and apply correctly to any country at any
given moment- not in the expected future as a prediction but at the
given time of the assessment as a fact.
"It is not wrong
to differentiate between the imperialists at a given time,
but we must keep in mind that it
is temporary. A temporary differentiation reflects only the assessment
of a given condition."
This is no
"exception" to Leninism but it is Leninism. The
enemy of scientific socialism isn’t nuance, but rigidity that lacks the
application of the dialectics of Marxism to the concrete conditions and
situation at a given time.
(I will take upon some
of the new phenomena subjects like “digital production chain”- digital
cartels, fragmented exploitation and weaponization, “data as raw material”
and its weaponization)
Lenin stated:
"War is
inevitable as long as society is split into classes, as long as
exploitation exists."
Now we dive in to the
question of war and the differences,
different stands on the wars in history.
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
(1) Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
(2) Stalin, 7th Extended Plenary Session of the ICCI
(3) Bukharin, Imperialism and World Economy
(4) Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It”
(5) Lenin, Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
(6) Lenin, Bellicose Militarism, and the Anti-Militarist Tactics of Social-Democracy
(7) Lenin, Lenin Socialism and War
(8) Lenin, Lenin, Junius Pamphlet
(9) Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
(10) Lenin, Report On Foreign Policy
(11) Lenin, Left-wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder. No Compromises?
(12) Stalin, Interview Roy Howard, March 1, 1936
(13) Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(14) Stalin, The Allied Campaign in Africa Answers to Associated Press Moscow Correspondent
(15) Stalin, To President Roosevelt
(16) Stalin, Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations
(17) Stalin, Interview to “Pravda” Correspondent Concerning Mr. Winston Churchill’s Speech at Fulton, March 1946
(18) Stalin, interview with correspondent of Pravda, February 16, 1951
(19) Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR, 1951
(20) Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues
(21) Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution, and the Renegade Kautsky
(22) Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Book Lectures On the History of Philosophy, 1915
(23) Lenin, The Russian Brand of Südekum, February 1, 1915
(24) Lenin, Speech At A Meeting In Butyrsky District
(25) Stalin, On the results of the July Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
(26) Stalin, 7" Extended Plenary Session of the ICCI
(27) Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues
(28) Bukharin, Toward a Theory of the Imperialist State
(29) Lenin, Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
(30) Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and War
(31) Basic Economic Law of Monopoly Capitalism, 1954
(32) A. Koh, Finance capital, Imperialism and War 1927
(33) Lenin, Letters on Tactics
(34) E. Varga, Economic causes and consequences of the World War
(35) Lenin, Under false flag
(36) Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(37) Stalin, The Allied Campaign in Africa Answers to Associated Press Moscow Correspondent
(38) Stalin, To President Roosevelt
(39) Stalin, Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations
(40) Bukharin, Means of Competitive Struggle, and State Power(41) Stalin, The Question of Peace and Security