Scientific concept of imperialism- Historical types of wars
Scientific Concept of Imperialism
Historical Types of Imperialist wars in modern times
As we have seen Stalin’s expose
of the material truth of the inevitability of war economies in
“imperialist” countries in which the militarization of economy starts together
with the state monopoly capitalism and
when the imperialist rivalry
intensifies, all capitalist states faces the option of either militarization
or being subjugated. Stalin phased the history
of wars not by mere differentiation in forms but a scientific
periodization of wars in general and world wars in particular.
In evaluating world wars, a common mistake is considering the given war as an isolated, accidental phenomenon. Not considering the balance of powers at that given time between the classes and between the capitalist countries pushes the analyzers as far as arguing that the war could have been avoided if a more reasonable policy had been pursued. Leninist proven theory is that wars are inevitable under capitalism. Each war politically and economically may be somewhat different. The world wars in economic terms have been essentially different from the previous wars; be it as wars against the autocracies, monarchies, feudalism, anti-colonialism, colonialism. World war under monopoly capitalism was no longer a matter of subordinating new regions to the regime of imperialism, but of the struggle of the representatives of imperialism among themselves for a new redivision of the exploited colonial and semi-colonial regions through the use of force- namely internal conflicts and wars.
The attitude of the left in
general varied towards the wars in each epoch stemming mostly from the ideological
differences. That ideological difference draw the line between the
Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (of all types) which reflected itself on the attitude
of the masses. Lenin’s assessment is important to state here for it still
manifest itself for the current assessments.
“The growth of the upward curve
of capitalism and the exploitation of the semi-colonies and colonies made it
possible for the bourgeoisie of the imperialist powers to provide the
industrial proletariat of their countries with its standard of living, which
was rising slowly but steadily.
This fact explains why a
significant part of the working class in the imperialist countries has
separated from the general mass of the proletariat and has become a labor
aristocracy. And this labor aristocracy served as the basis for revisionism
and the approval of the colonial policy by the social democracy. It was
also the economic basis for social patriotism and for the joint action of the
industrial proletariat with its bourgeoisie during the war.” (34)
“Our attitude towards war” said
Lenin, “is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists
(supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ from
the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and
the class struggle within the country; we understand that war cannot be
abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we
also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the
oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners,
serfs against land-owners, and wage workers against the bourgeoisie, as
legitimate, progressive, and necessary. We Marxists differ from both the
pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from
the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) to study each war
separately. In history there have been numerous wars which,
in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that
inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited
the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally
harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or
serfdom), the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (Turkish and Russian).
Therefore, it is necessary to examine the historically specific features
of precisely the present war.” (34)
This statement of Lenin debunks
the learned by rote slogan, the ready made scheme in order to avoid from making
concrete assessment that “no wars between
the capitalist can bring about a progressive result.”
Keeping in mind Lenin’s statement that “depending on
historical conditions, the relationship of classes and similar
data, the attitude towards war must be different at different times
" let’s study the previous wars.
The attitudes against the war
Marxist dialectics call
for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation.
Lenin’s previous statement
dialectically connected and related to the fundamental principle that
our evaluation of any phenomena,
including war, and the stand we take stems from the “interests of working class” and
always with the “interests of their struggle “in mind.
There will be times, conditions,
and situations where there will be no “interests of proletariat in
general” but only the “interests of proletariat” in
particular, and 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 different.
Wars during the time of Marx and Engels and their attitudes
The wars during the time of Marx
and Engels had different character as compared to the latter wars. However,
since the West is not “the world” as they proceed from that premises and deny
the bourgeois democratic revolutions and anti-imperialist wars, in fact there are still so many feudal countries,
colonies, semi-colonies in the world, in which the bourgeoisie democratic
revolutions, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist wars are still on the agenda. As far as choosing or standing by a
capitalist state against another one is
concerned, it is a history of a “bygone” period. The stand is determined
by the concrete analysis and the determination of the stand based on the
“interests of working class”. Anti-imperialist
wars serve the interests of working class regardless of the class nature of the
forces waging the anti-imperialist war.
During the era of Marx and
Engels, Mid-19th Century, Wars were primarily bourgeois-democratic against
feudalism and dynastic empires. In Marx’s time bourgeoisie was historically
progressive in dismantling feudalism, with the exception of reactionary colonial
wars waged by the colonizer countries making anti-colonial wars objectively
progressive.
Lenin in his critique of Potresoy
clarifies the old epoch and its class context in regard to
Marx attitude to the wars and the question of the “the success of which
bourgeoisie is more desirable”.
“Potresov
has failed to notice that, to Marx in 1859 (as well as in
a number of later cases), the question of “the success of which
side is more desirable” meant asking “the success of which
bourgeoisie is more desirable”. Potresov has failed to notice that
Marx was working on the problem at a time when there existed
indubitably progressive bourgeois movements, which moreover did not
merely exist, but were in the forefront of the
historical process in the leading states of Europe.” (35)
Lenin clarifies the difference ;”
First of all, these were considerations on the national movement (in Germany
and Italy)—on the latter’s development over the heads of the “representatives
of medievalism”; secondly, these were considerations on the
“main evil” of the reactionary monarchies (the
Austrian, the Napoleonic, etc.) in the Concert of Europe. (35)
These considerations are
perfectly clear and indisputable. Marxists have never denied
the progressiveness of bourgeois national-liberation movements against
feudal and absolutist forces… Marx and Engels were working
on the problem of the desirability of success for which
particular bourgeoisie; they were concerned with a modestly liberal
movement developing into a tempestuously democratic one. In
the period of present-day (non-bourgeois) democracy, Potresov is
preaching bourgeois national-liberalism at a time when one cannot even
imagine bourgeois progressive movements, whether modestly liberal or
tempestuously democratic, in Britain, Germany, or France. Marx
and Engels were ahead of their epoch, that of bourgeois-national
progressive movements; they wanted to give an impetus to such
movements so that they might develop “over the heads” of the
representatives of medievalism. (35)
“Marx’s method consists, first
of all, in taking due account of the objective content of a historical process
at a given moment, in definite and concrete conditions;
this in order to realize, in the first place, the movement of which
class is the mainspring of the progress possible in those concrete
conditions. In 1859, it was not imperialism that comprised the
objective content of the historical process in continental
Europe, but national-bourgeois movements for liberation.” .. Let
us suppose that two countries are at war in the epoch of bourgeois,
national-liberation movements. Which country should we wish success
to from the standpoint of present-day democracy? Obviously,
to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s
liberation movement, make its development speedier, and
undermine feudalism more decisively.” (35)
Marx’s view and approach to the
Tsarist regime as the main focus of reaction and
counterrevolution in the world, and had to be fought harder than any
other was not his general political line on war and peace but
related to the given concrete
situation and conditions.
“In the first epoch,”
said Lenin, “ the objective and historical task was to ascertain how,
in its struggle against the chief representatives of a dying feudalism,
the progressive bourgeoisie should “utilize” international conflicts so as to
bring the greatest possible advantage to the entire democratic
bourgeoisie of the world. In the first epoch, over half a century ago, it
was natural and inevitable that the bourgeoisie, enslaved by
feudalism, should wish the defeat of its “own” feudal oppressor,
all the more so that the principal and central feudal strongholds of
all-European importance were not so numerous at the time. This is how Marx
“appraised” the conflicts: he ascertained in which country, in a given
and concrete situation, the success of the bourgeois-liberation
movement was more important in undermining the all-European
feudal stronghold.” (35)
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 of Marx and Engels.
First World War – Lenin’s time and his attitude to the war
At the time of 1st
WW, the objective situation in the biggest
advanced states of Europe was different. Capitalism transitioned
from progressive to its reactionary stage of monopoly capitalism. Defining the
difference between the previous epoch and the new, Lenin stated that “
Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that whole
branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts, and
associations of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has
been divided up among the "lords of capital," either in the form of
colonies, or by enmeshing other countries in thousands of threads of financial
exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by the striving
for monopoly, for the seizure of territory for the investment of capital, for
the export of raw materials from them, and so forth. From the liberator of
nations that capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist-capitalism
has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism
has become reactionary” (7)
That transition coined the era of inter-imperialist
reactionary wars to redivide the colonies. Comparing with the previous, Lenin
stated ; “ Today, it would be ridiculous even to imagine a progressive
bourgeoisie, a progressive bourgeois movement, in, for instance,
such key members of the “Concert” of Europe, as Britain and Germany. The
old bourgeois “democracy” of these two key states has
turned reactionary. Potresov has “forgotten” this and has substituted
the standpoint of the old (bourgeois) so-called democracy for
that of present-day (non-bourgeois) democracy. This shift to
the standpoint of another class, and moreover of an
old and outmoded class, is sheer opportunism. There cannot be the
least doubt that a shift like this cannot be justified by an
analysis of the objective content of the historical process in the old
and the new epochs. “ (35)
Lenin’s critique and analysis
which set the attitude towards first WW concluded that “Present-day democracy
will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one nor the other
imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides are
equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie
in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be national-liberal
and have nothing in common with genuine internationalism.” (35) Lenin’s
stance in World War 1 was the “revolutionary defeatism” that
socialists should refuse to support any imperialist camp in
the war, promote working-class struggle, advocate socialist revolution
each within his own belligerent country as the way to win a peace.
“Defeatism” of Lenin was not a passive stand but an active one that
called for revolutionary action.
The change of the epoch from
“the success of which bourgeoisie is more desirable” of Marx
and Engel’s time to “no (imperialist) bourgeoisie is desirable
“ coined the new policy of “revolutionary defeatism ”in
cases of inter-imperialist wars.
Based on his analysis of concrete
situation in that given time and conditions, the “Revolutionary Defeatism”
stance of Lenin worked. “Civil war became a fact” said Lenin , “ The
transformation of the imperialist war into civil war, which we had predicted at
the beginning of the revolution, and even at the beginning of the war… circumstances
in which we found ourselves in October…” (9)
As an important confirmation of Marxist
Dialectics, the “defeatist” stand transformed in to “defencist” stand.
“Yes, we are now defencists” said Lenin. “We have been defencists since
October 25, 1917; we have won the right to defend our native land… it
is a policy of preparation for defense of our country, a steadfast policy, not
allowing a single step to be taken that would aid the extremist
parties of the imperialist powers in the East and West.” (10) Following,
Lenin stated that this “right” to “defend” from the “defeatist” stand
“is not achieved by issuing declarations, but only by overthrowing
the bourgeoisie in one’s own country. In that matter, he stated; “ it would
be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general
rule that would serve in all cases. One must have the brains
to analyze the situation in each separate case.” (11)
Either defeatist, defencist or
(active) neutral stands of Marxist Leninists, they all derive from the fundamental
principle of having the interests of proletariat and of its
struggle in mind when we make an evaluation for the policy and
stand. It is never a narrowminded, mechanical question of which side or more
like which bourgeois will be beneficial to us, it is the question of
where the interests of proletariat lie – not based on abstract
general theories but- based on concrete situation and conditions. Not based on the interest of
one country but calculating the interests of people in general.
“The second epoch is...the
deep contradictions in modern democracy… the cities were attracting ever
more inhabitants, and living conditions in the large cities of the whole world
were being levelled out; capital was becoming internationalized, and at the big
factories townsmen and country-folk, both native and alien, were intermingling.
The class contradictions were growing ever more acute…” “At present” Lenin
said; “ in the third epoch, no feudal fortresses of
all-European significance remain. Of course, it is the task of
present-day democracy to “utilize” conflicts, but—despite
Potresov and Kautsky—this international utilization must be directed, not
against individual national finance capital, but against
international finance capital. The utilization should not be
affected by a class which was on the ascendant fifty or a hundred years ago. At
that time, it was a question of “international action” by the most advanced
bourgeois democracy; today it is another class that is confronted by a similar
task created by history and advanced by the objective state of affairs.” (24)
As a great example to the learned
by rote mistakes of our time which manifest itself with the prescriptive application
of theories to all wars, Lenin
criticizing Rosa said, “The only mistake,..would be... to depart from
the Marxist requirement of concreteness, to apply the appraisal
of this war to all wars possible under
imperialism, to ignore the national movements against imperialism.”..
A national war might be transformed into an imperialist
war and vice versa.”.. “Only a sophist can disregard the difference
between an imperialist and a national war on the grounds that one might develop
into the other. Not infrequently have dialectics served as a bridge to
sophistry. But we remain dialecticians and we combat sophistry not by
denying the possibility of all transformations in general, but by analysing
the given phenomenon in its concrete setting and development…” (8)
Let’s conclude this section with
Lenin’s critique of Plekhanov on a similar issue which is striking and valuable
in this sense and valid for the current.
“Plekhanov“ , Lenin Says, “sophistically denounces German
opportunism so as to shield French and Russian opportunism. The result is
not a struggle against international opportunism, but support for it. He
sophistically bemoans the fate of Belgium, while saying nothing about
Galicia. He sophistically confuses the period of imperialism (i.e.,
one in which, as all Marxists hold, the objective conditions are ripe
for the collapse of capitalism, and there are masses of socialist
proletarians), and the period of bourgeois-democratic national movements;
in other words, he confuses a period in which the destruction of bourgeois
fatherlands by an international revolution of the proletariat is
imminent, and the period of their inception and consolidation. He
sophistically accuses the German bourgeoisie of having broken the peace,
while remaining silent about the lengthy and elaborate preparations
for a war against Germany by the bourgeoisie of the “Triple Entente.” …
To analyse all of Plekhanov’s sophisms would require a series of articles, and
many of his ridiculous absurdities are hardly worth going into. We shall touch
upon only one of his alleged arguments. In 1870 Engels wrote to Marx
that Wilhelm Liebknecht was mistaken in making anti-Bismarckism his
sole guiding principle. Plekhanov was glad to have discovered the
quotation: the same is true, he argues, with regard to
anti-tsarism! 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).
But what about Russia? Did
our brave Plekhanov formerly have the courage to declare that Russia’s
development demanded the conquest of Galicia, Constantinople, Armenia,
Persia, etc.? Does he have the courage to say so now? Has he
considered that Germany had to progress from the national disunity of the
Germans (who had been oppressed both by France and Russia in the first
two-thirds of the nineteenth century) to a unified nation, whereas in Russia
the Great Russians have crushed rather than united a number of other nations?
Without giving thought to such things, Plekhanov has simply masked his
chauvinism by distorting the meaning of the Engels
quotation of 1870 in the same fashion as Südekum has distorted
an 1891 quotation from Engels to the effect that the Germans must wage
a life-and-death struggle against the allied armies of France and Russia. (23)
First World War era was unique to
itself because it was carried out after the era of bourgeois democratic
revolutions in Western European Countries, at a time when capitalism has transitioned
from progressive to its reactionary stage of monopoly capitalism (imperialism).
The war was between the monopoly-capitalist (imperialist) countries.
Let’s refer to Stalin who made
the comparison as he analyzed the 2n WW.
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
(42) Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare
(43) Lenin, Plekhanov's Reference to History