Scientific Concept of Imperialism
HTML format divided by sections
These articles are and will be the synopsis of the book on imperialism I was working on for 3 years now that I have decided to give up due to the difficulties that comes with aging. Draft book had more and lengthy quotes from Lenin and Stalin. Acknowledging the fact that the laziness of people to read books and long articles, I have decided to summarize each section as best as I can to make it comprehensible by the readers. This will take some time due to the pressing developments in our current dynamic world and on going conflicts that I feel obligated to pay attention and prepare short analysis for.
I will add two attachments I consider which to be extremely important; 1) The character of wars in the era of technology differing from the previous wars 2) I will touch upon the most talked and written about subject, the question of "Chinese Imperialism" based on the scientific definition of imperialism, rather than based on learned by rote theories, the unscientific ones, that widely exist.
Foreword
I'm
some people who will turn up their noses at this article, assuming they already
know what "imperialism" means. This article, prepared after three
years of research, study and comprehending, is not for those who "believe
they already know everything," but for those like me who consider
themselves Marxist-Leninist students and strive to learn the topics in depth.
Today,
the subject of imperialism has become a term completely disconnected from the
dialectics of Marxism, perceived and applied based on rote-based theories,
solely based on its "economic" essence. Therefore, almost every
country is labeled "imperialist" based on subjectivity. This is not a
new approach. “Worse still”, Lenin argued in his time, "the scientific
concept of imperialism has been reduced to a term of abuse applied to those
with whom imperialists are in direct competition, their rivals, and their
opponents." This is what is generally done today.
The
same Kautskyite practice of dismantling
imperialism's dialectical unity and attributing it solely to its economic or
political essence is the dominant practice of today. Among the hundreds of
articles I've read in various languages on
Russia, especially on Chinese imperialism, I haven't seen a single convincing
Marxist-Leninist piece that addresses the subject dialectically and relies
on objective and concrete data.
These
articles either rely on memorized economic principles, ignoring the
political aspect, or, worse yet (including a few articles I've read from
Türkiye), deviating from the bourgeois practice of supporting their claims with
bogus, unsubstantiated, or even impossible-to-prove bourgeois data. A
Marxist-Leninist's reliance on false data to prove something essentially
eliminates their credibility. Marxism-Leninism is real, based on concrete
facts. But research laziness and a lack of knowledge of the scientific
definition of imperialism prevent even a valid argument from being
presented convincingly.
In
this lengthy article, which I reduced from 400 pages to 40+, I attempted to
summarize, using Lenin's words, the "scientific concept of
imperialism," using quotes from Lenin and Stalin. In other words, I
addressed not only the "economic essence of imperialism" but also its
"political essence," taking into account the
"indispensable" reality of war for imperialism. I included wars from
the eras of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, and their perspectives. Because
imperialism and war are inseparable twins, I addressed the development of a
country's "war industry," the necessity of directing the economy
"on a war footing," and, consequently, the question of whether a
country's military industry is "offensive" or
"defensive."
I
hope it will be useful to some readers.
----
"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)
********
Lenin and Stalin on Imperialism and imperialist 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 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)
Most everyone learn Leninism through memorizing the theories disconnected from the entire content- through which the variations, conditions, situations, and background context of the definition of imperialism is understood. Defining imperialism solely based on its economic context is a betrayal of Marxism Leninism and its dialectics. It is a clear indication of not comprehending the Leninist theory of scientific content of imperialism.
Learned by rote approaches to Lenin’s definition of imperialism reveals itself with the repetition of his 5th condition; “the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.” That actually refers to the end of an era and to the imperialists (in its scientific definition) of that newly emerged era in its initial phase. Due to the law of unequal economic development new imperialist countries will inevitably emerge, first fitting in their economic definition, and possibly later in its combined-scientific definition. In other words, the 5th condition does not tell anything about the new emerging imperialists of “new era” other than the “pre-existing” ones. Similarly, the fourth condition;” the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves” refer to the development in regard to the existing imperialist(s). Only the first three is applicable to define new imperialist countries in their economic aspect.
“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.
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.
“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 and 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
The economic essence of imperialism lies in the replacement of free competition by the domination of monopolies. The main features and requirements of the basic economic law of monopoly capitalism are as follows:
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.
Lenin in his article “Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?”, stated; ”Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism…” (4) 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 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 already 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 in 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 form 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 on war footing. That development helped to create and followed by Internationalization of Finance and Financial Institutions.
State Capitalism
“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.
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)
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. Monopolies shift industrial capital to the Global South for cheaper labor, weaker regulations, and higher returns; the process of capital export for higher profits as witnessed in U.S manufacturing moving to other low labor cost countries who also offer appealing concessions .
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 international finance capital , 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.
“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
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)
Imperialism and war are inseparable twins.
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, 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, France, Germany, , Italy, 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 of; 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 others. 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
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 (intensifies) 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.
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.” (45)
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.
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
"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)
“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.
"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 states;
“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.
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.
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)
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.
General Conclusion
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, who always reminds 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. Turkiye is almost a deindustrialized country with highly developed military industry with military presence in a number countries and actual invasion of Syria. That makes Turkiye 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 analyzing the given phenomenon in its concrete setting and development…” (8)
Leninist theories are not prescriptions or ready-made schemes to apply arbitrarily, 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.
From all of the above, one can deduce the synopsis of the scientific definition of imperialism as;
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 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.
2022- August 2025
Attachments
How the imperialist wars in our technologic era differs in their 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, Socialism and War
(8) 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?
(45) Lenin, The Attitude of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Towards the War