Scientific Concept of Imperialism - Second World War – Stalin's time
Second World War – Stalin's time and his attitude to the war
"Let us, however, try to replace sophistry (i.e., the method of clutching at the outward similarity of instances, without considering the nexus between events) with dialectics (i.e., the method of studying all the concrete circumstances of an event and of its development)." (23)
That principle and teaching
was what Stalin followed and applied during the second world
war. In a very similar way to First World War, he made agreement with
aggressive (Lenin calls extremist) Imperialist Germany to prepare
for the 2nd imperialist World War. He reached to other non-aggressive
imperialists for an alliance for peace. Second WW was an
inter-imperialist war, however Stalin’s attitude was different for the reasons
that the existing conditions were different. He explained;
“A distinguishing feature of the
new crisis is that it differs in many respects from the preceding one,
and, moreover, differs for the worse and not for the better. …the present
crisis has broken out not in time of peace, but at a time when
a second imperialist war has already begun.. when all the other big
capitalist powers are beginning to reorganize themselves on a war
footing.” (36)
Stalin was pointing out the “reorganization
of economy on a war footing.” He
explained the difference and said this difference is;
“…as distinct from the preceding crisis, the present crisis is not a general one, but as yet involves chiefly the economically powerful countries which have not yet placed themselves on a war economy basis. As regards the aggressive countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, who have already reorganized their economy on a war footing, they, because of the intense development of their war industry, are not yet experiencing a crisis of overproduction, although they are approaching it. This means that by the time the economically powerful, non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the phase of crisis the aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material in the course of war fever, are bound to enter a phase of very severe crisis.” (36)
Stalin’s assessment strikingly
describes the current world situation; as the declining of aggressive-fascist
imperialist US-West heading towards economic crisis, and non-aggressive
imperialist (in its economic sense) those
who are becoming economically powerful yet their economy is not on war-footing. This is the concrete assessment based on the concrete conditions
and the application of the dialectics of Marxism in determining the scientific concept
of imperialism – both in economic and military sense.
Stalin continued;
" It is no longer a question of competition in the markets, of a commercial
war, of dumping. These methods of struggle have long been recognized as
inadequate. It is now a question of a new redivision of the world, of
spheres of influence and colonies, by military action...the bloc of
three aggressive states came to be formed. A new redivision of the
world by means of war became imminent.
After the first imperialist
war the victor states, primarily Britain, France, and the United
States, set up a new regime in the relations between countries, the post-war
peace regime. .. However, three aggressive states, Japan tore up
the Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy the Versailles Treaty, and the new
imperialist war launched by them, upset the entire system of this
post-war peace regime… The new imperialist war became a fact.” (36)
The determination of the type
of war was not different – it was an “imperialist war”
but with distinctions from the previous imperialist war. Stalin evaluated
the character of this distinction with the questions;
“To what are we attribute this one-sided and strange
character of the new imperialist war?
How is it that the non-aggressive
countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily and
without resistance abandoned their positions and their obligations to
please the aggressors?
Is it to be attributed to the
weakness of the non-aggressive states? Of course not! Combined, the
non-aggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist
states, both economically and militarily.
To what then are we to attribute
the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors?” (36)
Stalin was clearly making
a distinction between the (extremist-bellicose) aggressive imperialists
and non-aggressive imperialists. He explained;
“The chief reason is that the majority
of the non-aggressive countries, particularly Britain and France, have
rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance
to aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of
"neutrality." (36)
Before the war in his
interview Stalin said; “In my opinion there are two seats of war danger.
The first is in the Far East, in the zone of Japan. I have in mind
the numerous statements made by Japanese military men containing threats
against other powers. The second seat is in the zone of Germany. It
is hard to say which is the most menacing, but both exist and are active.
Compared with these two principal seats of war danger, the Italian-Abyssinian
war is an episode. At present, the Far Eastern seat of danger
reveals the greatest activity. However, the center of this
danger may shift to Europe.” (12)
Three years later in his Report
on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the
C.P.S.U.(B.) Stalin said;
“What changes exactly have taken
place in the international situation in this period? In what way exactly have
the foreign and internal affairs of our country changed?
For the capitalist countries
this period was one of very profound perturbations in both the
economic and political spheres. In the economic sphere these were years of
depression, followed, from the beginning of the latter half of 1937,
by a period of new economic crisis, of a new decline of industry in the
United States, Great Britain, and France; consequently, these were
years of new economic complications. In the political sphere they were years of
serious political conflicts and perturbations… The entire post-war system, the
so-called peace regime, has been shaken to its foundations.
Let us now examine the concrete
data illustrating the changes in the international situation.
1. New Economic Crisis in the
Capitalist Countries, Intensification of the Struggle for Markets and Sources
of Raw Material, and for a New Redivision of the World.
The economic crisis which
broke out in the capitalist countries in the latter half of 1929 lasted until
the end of 1933. After that the crisis passed into a depression, and was then
followed by a certain revival, a certain upward trend of industry. But this
upward trend of industry did not develop into a boom, as is usually the case in
a period of revival. On the contrary, in the latter half of 1937 a new
economic crisis began which seized the United States first of all and
then England, France and a number of other countries.
The capitalist countries thus
found themselves faced with a new economic crisis before they had even
recovered from the ravages of the recent one.
This circumstance naturally led
to an increase of unemployment. The number of unemployed in capitalist
countries, which had fallen from thirty million in 1933 to fourteen million in
1937, has now again risen to eighteen million as a result of the new economic
crisis. "
In reference to “neutrality,” “non-intervention” which is so widely used as a ready-made formulas, Stalin’s explanation was enlightening.
“Formally speaking, the
policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows:
"Let each country defend
itself against the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is
not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their
victims."
But actually speaking, the
policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression,
giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming
the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an
eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work. (36)
In 1942, after the alliance is
made with the non-aggressive ones against the aggressive imperialists , Stalin
responded to the question of “What is the Soviet view of the Allied
campaign in Africa?”
The Soviet view of this campaign
is that it represents an outstanding fact of major importance, demonstrating
the growing might of the armed forces of the Allies and opening the prospect of
the disintegration of the Italy-German coalition in the
nearest future. (37)
Stalin was not shy to
congratulate the victories of her alliances on his telegraphs to
different leaders he stated;
"I congratulate you and the
valiant American and British troops on the brilliant victory which has
resulted in the liberation of Bizerta and Tunis from Hitler’s tyranny. I
wish you further successes." (38)
In 1944, Stalin in his Speech at
Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and
Moscow Party and Public Organizations said;
"The past year has been a
year of triumph of the common cause of the anti-German coalition for
the sake of which the peoples of the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United
States of America have united in fighting alliance.
The decision of the Teheran
Conference on joint actions against Germany and the brilliant
realization of that decision are one of the striking indications of the
consolidation of the front of the anti-Hitler Coalition. There are few
instances in history of plans for large-scale military operations undertaken in
joint actions against a common enemy being carried out so
fully and with such precision as the plan for a joint blow against Germany
drawn up at the Teheran Conference.
… There is talk of
differences between the three Powers on certain security
problems. Differences do exist, of course, and they will arise
on a number of other issues as well... What matters is not that there
are differences, but that these differences do not transgress the
bounds of what the interests of the unity of the three Great
Powers allow, and that, in the long run, they are resolved in accordance with
the interests of that unity.
To win the war against Germany
is to accomplish a great historic task. But to win the war does
not in itself mean to ensure for the peoples a lasting peace and
guaranteed security in the future. The task is not only to win the war but
also to make new aggression and new war impossible—if not for ever, then at
least for a long time to come.” (41)
Stalin did not have the illusion
that the non-aggressive imperialists will not change its character. His policy
was the policy of “utilizing” the contradictions between the imperialist powers
for the best interests of the proletariat in particular and in general.
Existing conditions and situations required for the duration the task
to be “utilizing” the conflict, not against all
international finance capital but against individual national finance
capital, whereas before the October Revolution,
during the first world war, it was the other way around.
In his interview of
1946 Stalin says ;
"Mr. Churchill now takes the
stand of the warmongers, and in this Mr. Churchill is not
alone. He has friends not only in Britain but in the United
States of America as well.
A point to be noted is that in
this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a striking resemblance
to Hitler and his friends. Hitler began his work of unleashing war
by proclaiming a race theory, declaring that only German-speaking
people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets out to unleash
war with a race theory, asserting that only English-speaking nations
are superior nations, who are called upon to decide the destinies of the entire
world. Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain and the United States, present
to the non-English speaking nations something in the nature of an
ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will be well;
otherwise, war is inevitable.”… There can be no doubt that
Mr. Churchill’s position is a war position." (17)
In his 1951 interview Stalin
responds to the question “Do you consider a new world war inevitable?”:
"At least at the present time it
cannot be considered inevitable… these aggressive forces, control
the reactionary governments and direct them. But at the same time, they are
afraid of their people who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance
of peace. Therefore, they are trying to use reactionary governments in
order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the
new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as
aggressive. They are trying to deceive their people in order to impose
on them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war.
Precisely for this reason they
are afraid of the campaign in defense of peace, fearing that it can expose
the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governments.
Peace will be preserved and
consolidated if the people take the cause of preserving peace into
their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may become
inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in
lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war. " (18)
As the First WW started as an
imperialist war, the second WW started as an imperialist war with each had its
distinctive character. Unlike those who claims the second world war was not an
imperialist war, Stalin clearly stated that;
"the Second World War
began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries.
Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a socialist land, is more
dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist countries; for whereas war
between capitalist countries puts in question only the supremacy of certain
capitalist countries over others, war with the U.S.S.R. must certainly
put in question the existence of capitalism itself. Secondly, because the
capitalists, although they clamor, for "propaganda" purposes, about
the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, do not themselves believe that it is
aggressive, because they are aware of the Soviet Union's peaceful policy and
know that it will not itself attack capitalist countries.
After the First World War it was
similarly believed that Germany had been definitely put out of action… that
Germany would never rise to her feet again, and that there would be no more
wars between capitalist countries. In spite of this, Germany rose to
her feet again as a great power within the space of some fifteen or
twenty years after her defeat… Britain and the United States that
helped Germany to recover economically and to enhance her economic war
potential. Of course, when the United States and Britain assisted Germany's
economic recovery, they did so with a view to setting a recovered
Germany against the Soviet Union, to utilizing her against the land of
socialism. But Germany directed her forces in the first place against the
Anglo-French-American bloc.
Consequently, the struggle of the
capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their
competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the contradictions
between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.
What guarantee is there, then,
that Germany and Japan will not rise to their feet again, will not attempt to
break out of American bondage and live their own independent lives? I
think there is no such guarantee. But it follows from this
that the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries remains in
force… To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary
to abolish imperialism. (19)
Conclusion of this section
As we see each and every
war, despite its general class context, had different
characters based on the existent condition and situation and
based on the economic and military policy that is followed by
the belligerent countries. As Lenin warned that relying on “the ready-made
conclusions one had acquired, without putting in a
great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding
the facts which he must examine critically, one would
be a very deplorable Communist.” (20)
Using ready-made conclusions and
formulas will force one to sophistry. “By means of patent sophistry, Marxism
is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; everything is
recognised in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of
struggle” (7)
History, without a doubt shows
that the attitude of Marxist Leninists to the wars, from Marx &
Engels to Lenin to Stalin, fundamentally had one thing in mind; the
interests of proletariat and her struggle, and determination of how
to “utilize” these conflicts so that it brings the greatest
possible advantage for them. Not the memorized and sloganized general
theories and ready made conclusions, but the concrete assessment of
concrete situation for the fundamental interests in mind.
As Lenin described years ago that
is fully and precisely relative to todays approach on imperialism, he stated
that “the essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the
politics of imperialism from its economics” . This is exactly what the learned by rote “theorists”
do when they apply the concept of imperialism to any given country. They are
stuck in the “economics” of imperialism totally divorced from the politics
of it.
The crux of the matter is the
conflict between Leninist-Bolshevik theory of the inevitability of multipolarity due to the law of uneven
economic development and the Kautskyite theory which argues that the conflicts between the world’s great
powers and empires can be reconciled for
a unipolar world order through global organizations such as the IMF , the
World Bank, and the WTO , and therefore Lenin’s theory of imperialism is
outdated.
Kautskyite argument inevitably aligns
with the utopia that “peace is achievable” in capitalist world order,
Lenin’s argument is that war is inevitable as long as capitalism reigns.
The wars vary in character and their
form so do the stand against the wars vary. There is no ready-made
schema that applies to all wars and the stands to be taken against wars. The
character of the wars during Marx and Engel’s time was different, and the form
of the wars in latter times were different so was the stands against them. The first world war was different in the
sense that all the imperialists countries were ready for war both economically
and politically-militarily. For this war, the task of the revolutionaries were
to utilize the inter-imperialist conflict against all international
finance capital. For the second WW, Stalin’s policy was the policy of “utilizing” the
contradictions between the imperialist powers for the best interests of the
proletariat in particular and in general. Existing conditions and
situations required for the duration the task to be “utilizing” the conflict, not against all international
finance capital but against individual national finance capital.
While criticizing Rosa Lenin was saying; “we remain dialecticians and we combat sophistry not by denying the possibility of all transformations in general, but by analyzing the given phenomenon in its concrete setting and development… This "epoch" has made the policies of the present great powers thoroughly imperialist… Objectively, the feudal and dynastic wars were then opposed by revolutionary democratic wars, by wars for national liberation. This was the content of the historical tasks of that epoch. At the present time, the objective situation in the biggest advanced states of Europe is different…From the standpoint of progress, from the standpoint of the progressive class, the imperialist bourgeois war, the war of highly developed capitalism, can, objectively, be opposed only with a war against the bourgeoisie, i.e., primarily civil war for power between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.. Marxist dialectics call for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation…” (8)
Imperialism means monopolization
and the dominance of finance capital not only domestically but
internationally. Imperialism means deindustrialization
of the economy while the industrialization of military take over and the economy is switched to be
shaped on war footing.
Imperialism means that its interests
are in line with instability , conflicts and wars, because imperialism
means war, aggressive imperialists in its full meaning of the concept, seek war.
“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..” (40)
Thus, 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. “ (5)
Here Lenin directly connects the
“internal regime and policy” of a
given country for any “use of force” or for wars. “If they both are the two sides of the same coin” some will say, ”
then our attitude to a “war” will not be different than our attitude to
“imperialism”. However, Lenin clearly points out that “depending on
historical conditions, the relationship of classes and similar data, the
attitude towards war must be different at different times." (30) That,
dialectically means that, 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 will have to be changed.
When the concept of imperialism
is studied and applied subjectively and arbitrarily, in direct
connection with that arbitrary application of concept, the assessment of wars
and the decisions to take a stand against a specific war turns out to be subjective
and arbitrary.
This is a common practice of chauvinists
and ultra-imperialists which is unconsciously followed by the sincere leftists. Imperialists and their mouth pieces, most
often penetrating into Marxist Leninist
left, through the application of
“entrism” tactics once proposed by Trotsky, do invent, initiate, and
disseminate the theories that fits the interests of bourgeoisie.
They reduce the theory of
imperialism to rivalries, competition of the known imperialist powers in order
to deflect the attention from the aggressive, fascist imperialist power they
defend. In most cases, historically this
reflects itself in learned by rote theories and ready made schemes that puts all the monopoly-capitalist (imperialist in economic sense) countries in the same basket with the militarized, aggressive and warmongering monopolist countries that fits the scientific definition of imperialism. It is the most fashionable alternative to the Leninist
analytical framework of a modern version of Kautsky's theory of
ultra-imperialism, the world-system theory, which avoids the
economic, political, and ultimately military power that each monopoly
capitalist group can leverage in the process of dividing the world into
"center," "semi-periphery," and "periphery." They defend unipolar world order and disregard the concrete assessment of where the interests of each lie; "consumer or producer" and thus, "war or peace" in that specific given time.
CONCLUSION
It is an indisputable fact that
the common definition and application of the term “imperialism” is being used,
in most cases consciously abused to deflect the attentions from the aggressive,
bellicose and warmongering imperialist
power(s). Despite all the “quotes” from Lenin, the way the term is being used
has nothing to do with Leninism. Aside from the conscious confusion of the
subject by Kautskyites and by all those who try to revise Marxism Leninism for
the benefit of one or the other
imperialist powers, the sincere but ignorant, assessment-lazy use of the term divorced from the concrete
realities fall short of Marxism Leninism if not anti-Marxist Leninist.
Paying attention to Lenin’s
description which leaves no room for misunderstanding; “Economically, imperialism (or
the “era” of finance capital—it is not a matter of words) is the
highest stage in the development of capitalism, one in which
production has assumed such big, immense proportions that free competition
gives way to monopoly. That is the economic essence of
imperialism.” (44)
Lenin himself stressed the fact
that his definition of imperialism was limited to its economic aspect of the
subject. Lenin in his forward to Imperialism stated that “pamphlet was written
with an eye to the tsarist censorship. Hence, 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…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)
Lenin, who always reminded the study
of preceding internal policy of a
country for any assessment states that “the
political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly capitalism
(imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the change from democracy to political
reaction. Democracy corresponds to free competition. Political reaction
corresponds to monopoly. “Finance capital strives for domination, not
freedom…,It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific, to
single out “foreign policy” from policy in general, let
alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy. Both in foreign and
home policy imperialism strives towards violations of democracy, towards
reaction. In this sense imperialism is indisputably the “negation” of democracy
in general.” (44)
Does this explanation leave
any room to comprehend the fact that there is at least one other
essence of imperialism? Unless one is
not sincere and serious about Marxism Leninism, it is very clear that those
words does not leave any room for misunderstanding. Lenin , with the same
clarity stated “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)
It is clear that to define
“imperialism” in its scientific meaning, one has to analyze, observe and make
the dialectical connections between the economic and political aspects of
imperialism. This connection has to be made based on the existing concrete
conditions and situations not based on the assumptions or possibilities
like ; “it is a monopoly capitalist country so it is imperialist regardless of
having a military industry or not”. This
argument is an infantile one made mostly by those who learn by rote and have no
clue on the necessity of the application of Marxist dialectics to general
theories. One country may have monopoly capitalism but may not be an
actual imperialist (yet). However, as an
exception, another country who does not
have monopoly capitalism, or not be a highly industrialized economy but may have a strong military and actively
expansionist, may be an actual imperialist one. Most European countries, some
Latin American, Asian countries have monopolies and export capital; should we
call all them imperialist in its scientific meaning? No, we cannot. Türkiye is
almost a deindustrialized country with highly developed military industry with
military presence in a number countries and actual invasion of Syria. That
makes Türkiye an imperialist country not because it is a monopoly capitalist
one.
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”. (2) That is why it is
important to be objective and make the necessary concrete analysis before we
reach a conclusion on arbitrarily applying the term to a country. Because “ we
remain dialecticians and we combat sophistry … by analysing the given
phenomenon in its concrete setting and development…” (8)
Leninist theories are not
prescriptions or ready-made schemes to apply arbitrary, because “Marxist
dialectical method forbids the employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract
formulas, but demands the thorough, detailed analysis of a
process in all its concreteness, basing its conclusions only on such
an analysis. “ (42) Marxists
do not proceed from the generalized theories to
assessment of a given situation which renders subjectivity and arbitrariness
but proceed from the assessment of concrete situation to the
application of theories. Distinguishing the Bolsheviks from the rest, ”
Marx”, says Lenin, "... speaks only of the concrete
situation; Plekhanov draws a general conclusion without
at all considering the question in its concreteness.” (43)
This concreteness rather than
applying schemes based on learned by rote and memorized theories without any
analysis distinguishes the Bolsheviks from the rest. Lenin said that "If
a Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because
of the ready-made conclusions he had acquired, without putting
in a great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which
he must examine critically, he would be a very deplorable
Communist." (27)
As in all cases, in the case of
“imperialism” It is the responsibility
and duty of Leninists to consider all the aspects and dialectical connections
in order to define and apply the concept of imperialism to any given
country. Both the practices that make up the essence
of an imperialist economic policy and the essence of an
imperialist political policy should be considered and should be applicable
to a given country before labeling that country as “imperialist” in its
scientific meaning.
In addition, as Stalin has
explained, it is crucially important to
make analysis of whether a country’s posturing is aggressive or defensive. As
we have read through Stalin’s approach, this analysis first and foremost
depends on our concluded determination on the question of “where their
interests lie”; war or peace at that given concrete situation.
1) Monopolization of all major industries under the dominance of finance capital
2) Formation of state capitalism in order to consolidate all the other major state institutions
3) Export of capital and monopolization and control of major international financial institutions and international transactions in any shape and form.
4) Deindustrialization of economy through shifting production to other countries for cheap labor.
5) In order to protect their international monopoly of the financial institutions and their exported capital, their investments, militarization of industry and developing its economy on war-footing - not defensive but aggressive- offensive character.
6) Turning the industrialized, producer country in to a consumer country which heavily depends on the "producer" and on the earth mineral rich countries for its needs in general and military industry and technology industry in particular in return which inevitably forces the country to have an aggressive posturing rather than a defensive posturing on international arena
.
7) That translates in to exporting military means and men to the other countries on a permanent basis in order to subjugate any country that may take action against its interests.
In simple words, and proceeding from the principle that "Marxist must proceed not from what is possible, but from what is real" (33) branding of a country as "imperialist " in its scientific meaning should be made based on the concrete realities of that given time with the answer to the questions of 1) whether the country is a producer or consumer, 2) whether the interests of that given country is aligned with war or peace, 3) whether the country has a military industry and the economy of which is built on war-footing for subjugating the others. 4) whether It has a military aggressive posture or defensive posture. Lacking any of these characters at that given time, a country cannot be branded as "imperialist" in its scientific meaning and without differentiation.
Proceeding from learned by rote theories and ready made schemes will end up with anti-Leninist conclusions on any given subject especially when the concept of imperialism is applied arbitrarily. The question of inter-imperialist wars is another subject yet one can draw a conclusion from Lenin and Stalin’s assessments above. Let’s for now keep in mind Lenin’s assessment that “ if we are not giving any chance for sincere negotiations and the war is forced upon us, that war is a just war.” Obviously he was not talking about Soviets because any war of Soviets would be a just war. He was talking in general.
Erdogan A.
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
(42) Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare
(43) Lenin, Plekhanov's Reference to History
(44) Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism - What Is Economic Analysis?
