Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
A POPULAR OUTLINE
VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM
We must now try to sum
up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of
imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of
the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only
became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its
development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change
into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from
capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed
themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the
displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free
competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production
generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen
the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating
large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by
still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and
capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly:
cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands
of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free
competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it,
and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions
and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to
give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that
imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would
include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the
bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the
monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division
of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended
without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a
colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which
has been completely divided up.
But very brief
definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are
nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially
important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without
forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general,
which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its
full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include
the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of
production and capital has 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;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which
share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole
world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is
capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies
and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired
pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the
international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the
globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
We shall see later that
imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the
basic, purely economic concepts—to which the above definition is limited—but
also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism
in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the
working-class movement. The thing to be noted at this point is that
imperialism, as interpreted above, undoubtedly represents a special stage in
the development of capitalism. To enable the reader to obtain the most well grounded
idea of imperialism, I deliberately tried to quote as extensively as possible bourgeois economists who have to admit the particularly
incontrovertible facts concerning the latest stage of capitalist economy. With
the same object in view, I have quoted detailed statistics which enable one to
see to what degree bank capital, etc., has grown, in what precisely the
transformation of quantity into quality, of developed capitalism into
imperialism, was expressed. Needless to say, of course, all boundaries in
nature and in society are conventional and changeable, and it would be absurd
to argue, for example, about the particular year or decade in which imperialism
“definitely” became established.
In the matter of
defining imperialism, however, we have to enter into controversy, primarily,
with Karl Kautsky, the principal Marxist theoretician of the epoch of the
so-called Second International—that is, of the twenty-five years between 1889
and 1914. The fundamental ideas expressed in our definition of imperialism were
very resolutely attacked by Kautsky in 1915, and even in November 1914, when he
said that imperialism must not be regarded as a “phase” or stage of economy,
but as a policy, a definite policy “preferred” by finance capital; that
imperialism must not be “identified” with “present-day capitalism”; that if
imperialism is to be understood to mean “all the phenomena of present-day
capitalism”—cartels, protection, the domination of the financiers, and colonial
policy—then the question as to whether
imperialism is necessary to capitalism becomes reduced to the “flattest
tautology”, because, in that case, “imperialism is naturally a vital necessity
for capitalism”, and so on. The best way to present Kautsky’s idea is to quote
his own definition of imperialism, which is diametrically opposed to the
substance of the ideas which I have set forth (for the objections coming from
the camp of the German Marxists, who have been advocating similar ideas for
many years already, have been long known to Kautsky as the objections of a
definite trend in Marxism).
Kautsky’s definition is
as follows:
“Imperialism is a
product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving
of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex
all large areas of agrarian[Kautsky’s italics] territory, irrespective of what nations
inhabit it.” [1]
This definition is of no
use at all because it one-sidedly, i.e., arbitrarily, singles out only the
national question (although the latter is extremely important in itself as well
as in its relation to imperialism), it arbitrarily and inaccurately connects this question only with industrial capital in the countries which
annex other nations, and in an equally arbitrary and inaccurate manner pushes
into the forefront the annexation of agrarian regions.
Imperialism is a
striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s definition amounts to. It is
correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in general, a
striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment, however, we are
interested in the economic aspect of the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into his definition. The inaccuracies
in Kautsky’s definition are glaring. The characteristic feature of
imperialism is not industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was
precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial
capital, that from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme
intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy. The characteristic feature
of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly
industrialised regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for
Lorraine), because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges
those contemplating a redivision to reach out for every kind of territory, and (2) an essential feature of imperialism is the
rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for
the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves as to weaken the
adversary and undermine his hegemony.
(Belgium is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations against
Britain; Britain needs Baghdad as a base for operations against Germany, etc.)
Kautsky refers
especially—and repeatedly—to English writers who, lie alleges, have given a purely
political meaning to the word “imperialism” in the sense that he, Kautsky,
understands it. We take up the work by the English writer Hobson, Imperialism, which appeared in 1902, and there we read:
“The new imperialism
differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single
growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motivated
by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in
the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests.” [2]
We see that Kautsky is
absolutely wrong in referring to English writers generally (unless lie meant
the vulgar English imperialists, or the avowed apologists for imperialism). We
see that Kautsky, while claiming that he continues to advocate Marxism, as a matter
of fact takes a step backward compared with the social-liberal Hobson, who more correctly takes into account two “historically concrete”
(Kautsky’s definition is a mockery of historical concreteness!) features of
modern imperialism: (1) the competition between several imperialisms, and (2) the predominance of the
financier over the merchant. If it is chiefly a question of the annexation of
agrarian countries by industrial countries, then the role of the merchant is
put in the forefront.
Kautsky’s definition is
not only wrong and un-Marxist. It serves as a basis for a whole system of views
which signify a rupture with Marxist theory and Marxist practice all along the
line. I shall refer to this later. The argument about words which Kautsky
raises as to whether the latest stage of capitalism should be called
imperialism or the stage of finance capital is not worth serious attention.
Call it what you will, it makes no difference. The essence of the matter is
that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of
annexations as being a policy “preferred” by finance capital, and opposes to it
another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis
of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are
compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent, non-annexationist methods in
politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which
was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes
the basis of the present peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest
capitalist states, is compatible with a non-imperialist policy. The result is a
slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest
stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is
bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.
Kautsky enters into
controversy with the German apologist of imperialism and annexations, Cunow,
who clumsily and cynically argues that imperialism is present-day capitalism;
the development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive; therefore
imperialism is progressive; therefore, we should grovel before it and glorify
it! This is something like the caricature of the Russian Marxists which the
Narodniks drew in 1894-95. They argued: if the Marxists believe that capitalism
is inevitable in Russia, that it is progressive, then they ought to open a
tavern and begin to implant capitalism! Kautsky’s reply to Cunow is as follows:
imperialism is not present-day capitalism; it is only one of the forms of the
policy of present-day capitalism. This policy we can and should fight, fight
imperialism, annexations, etc.
The reply seems quite
plausible, but in effect it is a more subtle and more disguised (and therefore
more dangerous) advocacy of conciliation with imperialism, because a “fight” against the policy of the trusts and
banks that does not affect the economic basis of the trusts and banks is mere
bourgeois reformism and pacifism, the benevolent and innocent expression of
pious wishes. Evasion of existing contradictions, forgetting the most important
of them, instead of revealing their full depth—such is Kautsky’s theory, which
has nothing in common with Marxism. Naturally, such a “theory” can only serve
the purpose of advocating unity with the Cunows!
“From the purely
economic point of view,” writes Kautsky, “it is not impossible that capitalism
will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of the
cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism,” [3] i.e., of a superimperialism, of a union of the imperialisms of the
whole world and not struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under
capitalism, a phase of “the joint exploitation of the world by internationally
united finance capital”. [4]
We shall have to deal
with this “theory of ultra-imperialism” later on in order to show in detail how
decisively and completely it breaks with Marxism. At present, in keeping with
the general plan of the present work, we must examine the exact economic data
on this question. “From the purely economic point of view”, is
“ultra-imperialism” possible, or is it ultra-nonsense?
If the purely economic
point of view is meant to be a “pure” abstraction, then all that can be said
reduces itself to the following proposition: development is proceeding towards
monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly, towards a single world
trust. This is indisputable, but it is also as completely meaningless as is the
statement that “development is proceeding” towards the manufacture of
foodstuffs in laboratories. In this sense the “theory” of ultra-imperialism is
no less absurd than a “theory of ultra-agriculture” would be.
If, however, we are
discussing the “purely economic” conditions of the epoch of finance capital as
a historically concrete epoch which began at the turn of the twentieth century, then the best reply that one can make
to the lifeless abstractions of “ultraimperialism” (which serve exclusively a most
reactionary aim: that of diverting attention from the depth of existing antagonisms) is to contrast them with the
concrete economic realities of the present-day world economy. Kautsky’s utterly
meaningless talk about ultra-imperialism encourages, among other things, that
profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the
apologists of imperialism, i.e., that the rule of finance capital lessens the unevenness and contradictions inherent in
the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them.
R. Calwer, in his little
book, An
Introduction to the World Economy, [5] made an attempt to summarise the main, purely economic, data that
enable one to obtain a concrete picture of the internal relations of the world
economy at the turn of the twentieth century. He divides the world into five
“main economic areas”, as follows: (1) Central Europe (the whole of Europe with
the exception of Russia and Great Britain); (2) Great Britain; (3) Russia; (4)
Eastern Asia; (5) America; he includes the colonies in the “areas” of the
states to which they belong and “leaves aside” a few countries not distributed
according to areas, such as Persia, Afghanistan, and Arabia in Asia, Morocco
and Abyssinia in Africa, etc.
Here is a brief summary
of the economic data he quotes on these regions.
|
Principal
economic
areas
|
Area
|
Pop.
|
Transport
|
Trade
|
Industry
|
|
Million
sq.
miles
|
Millions
|
Railways
(thou. km)
|
Mercantile
fleet (mill-
ions tons)
|
Imports,
exports
(thous-million
marks)
|
Output
|
|
|
Of
coal (mill.
tons)
|
Of
pig iron
(mill. tons)
|
Number
of cotton
spindles
(millions)
|
|
1)
Central
Europe
|
27.6
(23.6)
|
388
(146)
|
204
|
8
|
41
|
251
|
15
|
26
|
|
2)
Britain
|
28.9
(28.6)
|
398
(355)
|
140
|
11
|
25
|
249
|
9
|
51
|
|
3)
Russia
|
22
|
131
|
63
|
1
|
3
|
16
|
3
|
7
|
|
4)
Eastern Asia
|
12
|
389
|
8
|
1
|
2
|
8
|
0.02
|
2
|
|
5)
America
|
30
|
148
|
379
|
6
|
14
|
245
|
14
|
19
|
NOTE: The figures in parentheses show the area
and population of the colonies.
We see three areas of
highly developed capitalism (high development of means of transport, of trade
and of industry): the Central European, the British and the American areas.
Among these are three states which dominate the world: Germany, Great Britain,
and the United States. Imperialist rivalry and the struggle between these
countries have become extremely keen because Germany has only an insignificant
area and few colonies; the creation of “Central Europe” is still a matter for
the future, it is being born in the midst of a desperate struggle. For the
moment the distinctive feature of the whole of Europe is political disunity. In
the British and American areas, on the other hand, political concentration is
very highly developed, but there is a vast disparity between the immense
colonies of the one and the insignificant colonies of the other. In the
colonies, however, capitalism is only beginning to develop. The struggle for South
America is becoming more and more acute.
There are two areas
where capitalism is little developed: Russia and Eastern Asia. In the former,
the population is extremely sparse, in the latter it is extremely dense; in the
former political concentration is high, in the latter it does not exist. The partitioning
of China is only just beginning, and the struggle for it between Japan, the
U.S., etc., is continually gaining in intensity.
Compare this reality—the
vast diversity of economic and political conditions, the extreme disparity in
the rate of development of the various countries, etc., and the violent
struggles among the imperialist states—with Kautsky’s silly little fable about
“peaceful” ultra-imperialism. Is this not the reactionary attempt of a
frightened philistine to hide from stern reality? Are not the international
cartels which Kautsky imagines are the embryos of “ultra-imperialism” (in the
same way as one “can” describe the manufacture of tablets in a laboratory as
ultra-agriculture in embryo) an example of the division and the
redivision of the world, the
transition from peaceful division to non-peaceful division and vice versa? Is
not American and other finance capital, which divided the whole world
peacefully with Germany’s participation in, for example, the international rail
syndicate, or in the international mercantile shipping trust, now engaged in redividingthe world on the basis of a new relation of
forces that is being changed by methods anything but peaceful?
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? Railway statistics [6] provide remarkably exact data on the different rates of growth of
capitalism and finance capital in world economy. In the last decades of
imperialist development, the total length of railways has changed as follows:
|
|
Railways
(000 kilometers)
|
|
1890
|
1913
|
+
|
|
Europe
|
224
|
|
346
|
|
+122
|
|
|
U.S.
|
268
|
411
|
+143
|
|
All
colonies
|
82
|
125
|
210
|
347
|
+128
|
+222
|
|
Independent
and semi-independent
states of Asia and America
|
43
|
137
|
+94
|
|
Total
|
617
|
|
1,104
|
|
|
|
Thus, the development of
railways has been most rapid in the colonies and in the independent (and
semi-independent) states of Asia and America. Here, as we know, the finance
capital of the four or five biggest capitalist states holds undisputed sway.
Two hundred thousand kilometres of new railways in the colonies and in the
other countries of Asia and America represent a capital of more than 40,000
million marks newly invested on particularly advantageous terms, with special
guarantees of a good return and with profitable orders for steel works, etc.,
etc.
Capitalism is growing
with the greatest rapidity in the colonies and in overseas countries. Among the
latter, new imperialist powers are emerging (e.g., Japan). The struggle among the world imperialisms is becoming more
acute. The tribute levied by finance capital on the most profitable colonial
and overseas enterprises is increasing. In the division of this “booty”, an
exceptionally large part goes to countries which do not always stand at the top
of the list in the rapidity of the development of their productive forces. In
the case of the biggest countries, together with their colonies, the total
length of railways was as follows:
|
|
(000
kilometres)
|
|
1890
|
1913
|
|
|
U.S.
|
268
|
413
|
+145
|
|
British
Empire
|
107
|
208
|
+101
|
|
Russia
|
32
|
78
|
+46
|
|
Germany
|
43
|
68
|
+25
|
|
France
|
41
|
63
|
+22
|
|
Total
|
491
|
830
|
+339
|
Thus, about 80 per cent
of the total existing railways are concentrated in the hands of the five
biggest powers. But the concentration of the ownership of these railways, the concentration of finance
capital, is immeasurably greater since the French and British millionaires, for
example, own an enormous amount of shares and bonds in American, Russian and
other railways.
Thanks to her colonies,
Great Britain has increased the length of “her” railways by 100,000 kilometres,
four times as much as Germany. And yet, it is well known that the development
of productive forces in Germany, and especially the development of the coal and
iron industries, has been incomparably more rapid during this period than in
Britain—not to speak of France and Russia. In 1892, Germany produced 4,900,000
tons of pig-iron and Great Britain produced 6,800,000 tons; in 1912, Germany
produced 17,600,000 tons and Great Britain, 9,000,000 tons. Germany, therefore,
had an overwhelming superiority over Britain in this respect. [7] The question is: what means other than war could there be under
capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of
capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence
for finance capital on the other?
Notes
[1] Die Neue Zeit, 1914, 2 (B. 32), S. 909, Sept. 11, 1914; cf.
1915, 2, S. 107 et seq. —Lenin
[2] Hobson, Imperialism, London, 1902, p. 324. —Lenin
[3] Die Neue Zeit, 1914, 2 (B. 32), S. 921, Sept. 11, 1914. Cf.
1915, 2, S. 107 et seq. —Lenin
[4] Ibid., 1915, 1, S. 144, April 30, 1915. —Lenin
[5] R. Calwer, Einfü hrung in die Weltwirtschaft, Berlin, 1906. —Lenin
[6] Statistisches Jahrbuch für das deutsche
Reich, 1915; Archiv für Eisenbahnwesen, 1892. Minor details for the distribution of railways among the
colonies of the various countries in 1890 had to be estimated approximately. —Lenin
[7] Cf. also Edgar Crammond, “The Economic Relations of the British
and German Empires” in The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, July 1914, p. 777 et seq. —Lenin
