We find that government today is in reality the executive
committee of the trusts and affiliated banks who use diplomacy and armed force
if not actually to annex countries, at least to secure markets, excluding
competition in their self-allotted spheres of interests. Imperialism aims at
the control of all the small nations to exploit them for its own benefit.
"Anti-imperialism" is the slogan of local aspiring capitalists who
wish to dominate the region in place of the US/UK/EU, a situation which would
still leave the mass of the population there exploited and oppressed with the
eternal problem of finding enough money to buy the things they need to live.
Lenin wrote a pamphlet which he entitled Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism. In it he argued that, through a process which had
been completed by the turn of the century, capitalism had changed its
character. Industrial capital and bank capital had merged into finance capital,
and competitive capitalism had given way to monopoly capitalism in which
trusts, cartels and other monopolistic arrangements had come to dominate
production. Faced with falling profits from investments at home, these
monopolies were under economic pressure to export capital and invest it in the
economically backward parts of the world where higher than normal profits could
be made. Hence, Lenin went on, the struggle by the most advanced industrial
countries to secure colonies where such "super-profits" could be
made. When, after 1917, Lenin became the head of the Bolshevik regime in Russia
the theory was expanded to argue that the imperialist countries were exploiting
the whole population of the backward areas they controlled and that even a
section of the working class in the imperialist countries benefited from the
super—profits made from the imperialist exploitation of these countries in the
form of social reforms and higher wages, Lenin argued that imperialism was in
part a conscious strategy to buy off the working classes in the imperialist
countries. His evidence consists of one quote from arch-imperialist Cecil
Rhodes , and one from Engels to the effect that the workers of England
"merrily share the feast" of its colonies.
Firstly his analysis is out of date when applied to the
current situation. Perhaps more importantly Lenin's theory of imperialism
Lenin's theory of imperialism pitted the working class of undeveloped countries
against that of the developed ones. It led to upholding national interest
against class interest. Lenin's position was not a mistake. The Labour Aristocracy
theory had the political purpose of enabling the Bolsheviks to argue for the
workers in the colonies to form united fronts with their local ruling classes
against Imperialism. This in turn had the aim of dividing the working class
internationally, and turning it into cannon fodder for capitalist war. Lenin's
expanded theory made the struggle in the world not one between an international
working class and an international capitalist class, but between imperialist
and anti—imperialist states. The international class struggle which socialism
preached was replaced by a doctrine which preached an international struggle
between states.
The whole thrust of Marx's own analysis of capitalism was
that the workers movement would first triumph in the economically advanced
parts of the world, not in a relatively backward economic area like Russia.
Lenin explained away this contradiction by arguing that Marx had been
describing the situation in the pre—imperialist stage of capitalism whereas, in
the imperialist stage which had evolved after his death, the capitalist state
had become so strong that the breakthrough would not take place in an advanced
capitalist country but in the weakest imperialist state. Tsarist Russia had
been the weakest link in the chain of imperialist countries and this explained
why it was there that the first "workers revolution" had taken place.
This was tantamount to saying that the Russian revolution was the first
"anti—imperialist" revolution, and in a sense it was. Russia was the
first country to escape from the domination of the Western capitalist countries
and to follow a path of economic development that depended on using the state
to accumulate capital internally instead of relying on the export of capital
from other countries.
In the early days of the Bolshevik regime, when Russia was
faced with a civil war and outside intervention by the Western capitalist
powers, Lenin realised that this was a card he could play to try to save his
regime. Playing the anti -imperialist card meant appealing to the "toiling
masses" of Asia not to establish socialism but to carry out their own
anti-imperialist revolutions. The 'super-exploited" countries were to be
encouraged to seek independence as this would weaken the imperialist states,
who were putting pressure on Bolshevik Russia. This strategy was presented to
the workers movement in the West as a way of provoking the socialist revolution
in their countries. Deprived of their super— profits, the ruling class in the
imperialist countries would no longer be able to bribe their workers with
social reforms and higher wages; the workers would therefore turn away from
reformism and embrace revolution.
After Lenin's death in 1924, this strategy of building up an
"anti-imperialist" front against the West was continued by his
successors. Because it taught that all the people of a colonial or a dominated
country had a common interest in obtaining independence, i.e. a state of their
own, it was very attractive to nationalist ideologists and politicians in these
countries. They called on all the inhabitants of the country they sought to
rule to unite behind them in a common struggle to achieve independence. As a
result, in these countries "socialism" became associated with
militant nationalism rather than with the working-class internationalism it had
originally been. The political struggle there came to be seen as a struggle,
not between the working class and the capitalist class, hut as a struggle of
all patriotic elements— workers, peasants and capitalists together—against a
handful of traitorous, unpatriotic elements who would have sold out to foreign
imperialists. They called on all the inhabitants of the country they sought to
rule to unite behind them in a common struggle to achieve independence. As a result,
in these countries "socialism" became associated with militant
nationalism rather than with the working—class internationalism it had
originally been. The political struggle there came to be seen as a struggle,
not between the working class and the capitalist class, hut as a struggle of
all patriotic elements— workers, peasants and capitalists together—against a
handful of traitorous, unpatriotic elements who would have sold out to foreign
imperialists.
Marx and Engels had little to say on the subject of
imperialism. Their remarks on colonialism and foreign trade, particularly the
section on counter-tendencies to the tendency of the Falling Rate of Profit,
have been used to give authority to other theories and blown up out of
proportion (Capital Volume 3 ) These three pages were used to justify
anti-imperialism, but all they basically say is that a national capital tries
to avoid the crisis caused by the Falling Rate of Profit, which in turn is
caused by the increase in the ratio of constant to variable capital, of
machinery to workers, by investing in foreign countries. Briefly, The Falling
Rate of Profit is explained by the fact that capitalists are forced by
competition to produce cheaper goods by increasing the ratio of machinery to
workers. Because labour is the only source of value, the rate of profit is
given by dividing the proportion of living labour in the product by the
proportion of dead labour, or machinery. This rate must fall as the proportion
of machinery rises. Capital invested "at home", in production for
foreign trade, can also yield a higher rate of profit
"because it competes with commodities produced by other
countries with less developed production facilities, so that the more advanced
country sells its goods above their value". This enables the more advanced
country to dominate the less advanced, by making more profit. Capital invested
directly in production in the colonies also produces more profit: "the
reason why this can yield higher rates of profit is that the profit rate is generally
higher there on account of the lower degree of development, and so too is the
exploitation of labour, through the use of slaves and coolies, etc." What
this passage means is that a higher rate of profit is obtainable in countries
where exploitation is less developed, where more variable capital (labour) is
required to turn out a given quantum of value from a given unit of constant
capital (machinery).
Marx doesn't make too much of this counter-tendency to the
Falling Rate of Profit. He adds that though the more advanced country
"receives more labour in exchange for less", it is all "pocketed
by a particular class, just as in the exchange between labour and capital in
general". Both foreign trade and capital export are just particular
examples of capitalism in general. They are not qualitatively different from
what capital does within its "home" country. The
"super-profits" of anti-Imperialist theory are, in other words,
simply larger quantities of ordinary profits. Taking over competitors with less
developed production facilities by destroying them by selling cheaper goods,
and taking advantage of these less developed facilities to make more profit, is
part of capital's daily life. Moralistic protest about the unfairness of
imperialism, as opposed to ordinary capitalism, is an attempt to confuse us
about the nature of the beast. (The enslavement of Africans was qualitatively
worse than the forced deportations of the English, Scots and Irish poor, but if
a capitalist power is more savage and parasitic abroad than it is at home, that
is only because the class struggle at home has restrained it. If "First
World" workers have been "bribed", that is because they have
forced the bosses to bribe them.)
Marxian economics does not measure the level of exploitation
by how high or low wages are but by reference to the amount of surplus value
produced as compared with the amount of wages paid, whether high or low. By
this measure the workers of the advanced countries were more exploited than
those of the colonies, despite their higher wages, because they produced more
profits per worker. Lenin failed to understand why different rates of wages
prevail in different countries. According to him, wages are higher in
imperialist countries because the capitalists there bribe their workers out of
the superprofits which they earn from exploiting the subjugated countries.
Marx's explanation as to why wages were higher in these countries. Both
productivity and the rate of exploitation (ratio of paid to unpaid labour) were
higher there:
"The more productive one country is relative to another
in the world market, the higher will be its wages compared with the other. In
England, not only nominal wages but (also) real wages are higher than on the
continent. The worker eats more meat, he satisfies more needs. This, however,
only applies to the industrial worker and not the agricultural labourer. But in
proportion to the productivity of the English workers their wages are not
higher (than the wages paid in other countries)" (Theories of Surplus
Value).
A lower rate of wages does not make any one country any less
capitalist than another: The ruling class in all countries pay workers as much
as they think they have to, calculated from:
a) the need for workers to stay alive and, to a greater or
lesser degree, healthy,
b) the shortage or otherwise of workers capable of doing the
job, and
c) the class struggle
(Where does a wage rise gained by struggle end and a bribe
begin? Lenin's position implies that British workers should deduce what proportion
of their pay checks are the proceeds of the exploitation of the colonies, and
hand that proportion back to their employers, declaring their refusal to be
bribed.)
"The different states of the different civilised
countries, in spite of their motley diversity of form, all have this in common,
they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less
capitalistically developed" (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875).
A country may be highly industrialised or a developed
agricultural one or the chief supplier of raw materials for industry or
whatever. This happens due to the division of labour amongst the various
capitalist countries.
Yes, Marx and Engels did support certain nationalist
movements and some wars - TO BRING CAPITALISM TO FEUDAL STATES, to usher the
capitalist class into political power so they could create the pre-requisites
of socialism; an actual working class within an industrialised society. Prussia
against the Slavs. Britain and France against Tsarist Russia. Even Prussia against
France so as to strengthen unification of Germany . But can anyone seriously
think that such a policy is required in to-days world where capitalism is now
the predominant system and its the working class thats the decisive class not
the capitalists . What may have been right in the 19thCentury for Marx and
Engels , may not now be the right choice in the 20th Century under changed
circumstances . What was perhaps provident for backward Russia in the eyes of
Lenin or Trotsky need not be applicable or advisable for the rest of us .
Almost every country is more powerful than another, and
tries to dominate it, (apparently ignorant of Marx's advice that a nation which
oppresses another can never itself be free.) Even the smallest countries
harbour designs on bits of their neighbours' territory. The tendency of nations
to dominate others leads to the view that they are all imperialist, which
renders the term anti-imperialism meaningless. Advocating the political
independence of the working class is very different from promoting national
independence.
The logic of such movements is to subordinate the interests
of workers to those of the bourgeois leadership and that such movements can tie
their movement to presently supportive states that may well be prepared to use
it as a bargaining chip in their pursuit of their own geopolitical interests.
Different regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialist have a
history of collaborating with imperialism. It is of the essence of bourgeois
nationalists that, when imperialism prevents them for building their own
independent capitalist state, they may lead struggles against it, but they are
striving to carve out a place for themselves within the existing system, not to
overthrow it. This means that, sooner or later, they will come to terms with
imperialism. Successful anti-imperialism becomes imperialism. This is well
illustrated by the example of Germany. The Communist International actually
offered some support to the Nazis in the early twenties on the grounds that
they were a national liberation struggle. Germany was an oppressed nation,
occupied and looted by French and British imperialism. The Nazis fought the
occupying troops, so the Comintern supported the former, militarily and
politically. A decade later, this anti-imperialist movement had become German
Imperialism. Israel was founded in a national struggle against the British
Empire and resulted in the forced removal of Palestinians and the occupation of
the Palestine. Indonesia does not remotely correspond to any precolonial
domain, and possesses an enormous variety of peoples, cultures, languages and
religions.The people at one end have far more in common with their neighbours
across the national frontier than with their fellow "Indonesians",
its shape was determined by the last Dutch conquests. We witnessed the result
in East Timor. The bourgeoisie is a global class. Nations mostly emerged after
capitalism. Consciously or not, and there are numerous examples of conscious
strategy, capitalism created nations. A key feature of global capitalism is
that the world is organized into a system of states in which a few – the
imperialist powers – dominate the rest economically, politically, and
militarily." and this poses the question "...what stance Marxists
should take when states fight each other ? "
.jpg)
.jpg)
