V. I.

Lenin

Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy

There is no need for any special explanation to show that
the subject dealt with in Bukharin’s paper is topical and important. The
question of imperialism is not only one of the most essential but is
probably the most essential question in that sphere of economic
science which traces the change in the forms of capitalism in modern
times. Anyone interested not only in economics but in any aspect of con
temporary social life must certainly acquaint himself with the facts
pertaining to this sphere which the author has collected in such abundance
from the latest material. It goes without saying, that there can be no
concrete historical assessment of the current war, unless it is based on a
thorough analysis of the nature of imperialism, both in its economic and
political aspects. Otherwise, it would be impossible to arrive at a correct
understanding of the economic and diplomatic history of the last few
decades without which it would be ridiculous to expect to work out a
correct view of the war. From the standpoint of Marxism, which states most
definitely the requirements of modern science on this question in general,
one can merely smile at the “scientific” value of such methods as taking
the concrete historical assessment of the war to mean a random selection
of facts which the ruling classes of the country find gratifying or
convenient, facts taken at random from diplomatic “documents”, current
political developments, etc. Plekhanov, for instance, must have completely
parted with Marxism to substitute the angling after a couple of little
facts which delighted Purishkevich as much as Milyukov, for an analysis of
the essential properties and tendencies of imperialism, as the system of
economic relations of modern highly developed, mature and rotten-ripe
capitalism. The scientific concept of imperialism, moreover, is reduced to
a sort of term of abuse applied to the immediate competitors, rivals and
opponents of the two imperialists mentioned, each of whom holds exactly the same class
position as his rivals and opponents! This is not at all surprising in
this day of words forgotten, principles lost, philosophies overthrown,
and resolutions and solemn promises discarded.

N. I. Bukharin’s paper has especially high scientific value because he
examines the main facts of the world economy relating to imperialism as a
whole, as a definite stage of development of the most highly developed
capitalism. There was an epoch of relatively “peaceful” capitalism,
when it had completely defeated feudalism in the leading European countries and
was free to develop with the utmost— relative —tranquillity
and smoothness, expanding “peacefully” over the vast expanses of the
as yet unsettled lands and the countries not yet irrevocably drawn into the
capitalist maelstrom. Of course, even in that period, roughly between 1871 and
1914, “peaceful” capitalism created conditions of life that were a
very far cry from actual “peace”, both in the military and the class
sense. For nine-tenths of the population of the leading countries, for hundreds
of millions in the colonies and backward countries, that epoch was not one of
“peace” but of oppression, suffering and horror, which was the more
terrible, possibly, for appearing to be a “horror without end”. This epoch
is gone for good, it has given way to an epoch which is relatively much more
violent, spasmodic, disastrous and conflicting, an epoch which for the mass of
the population is typified not so much by a “horror without end” as
by a “horrible end”.

In all this it is extremely important to bear in mind that this change has been
brought about in no other way but the immediate development, expansion and
continuation of the most profound and basic trends in capitalism and in commodity production in general. These main trends, which have been in evidence all
over the world for centuries, are the growth of exchange and the growth of
large-scale production. At a definite stage in the development of exchange, at
a definite stage in the growth of large-scale production, namely, at the stage
which was attained towards the turn of the century, exchange so
internationalised economic relations and capital, and large-scale production
assumed such proportions that monopoly began to replace free competition.

Monopoly associations of entrepreneurs, trusts, instead of enterprises,
“freely” competing with each other—at home and in relations between the countries —became typical. Finance capital took over as
the typical “lord” of the world; it is particularly mobile and
flexible, particularly interknit at home and internationally, and particularly
impersonal and divorced from production proper; it lends itself to concentration
with particular ease, and has been concentrated to an unusual degree already, so
that literally a few hundred multimillionaires and millionaires control the
destiny of the world.

Abstract theoretical reasoning may lead to the conclusion at which
Kautsky has arrived—in a somewhat different fashion but also by abandoning
Marxism—namely, that the time is not too far off when these magnates of
capital will unite on a world scale in a single world trust, substituting an
internationally united finance capital for the competition and struggle between
sums of finance capital nationally isolated. This conclusion is, however, just
as abstract, simplified and incorrect as the similar conclusion drawn by our
Struvists and Economists of the nineties, when they drew conclusions from the
progressive nature of capitalism, its inevitability and its final victory in
Russia that ranged from the apologetic (admiration for capitalism,
reconciliation with it, and glorification instead of struggle), and the apolitical (that is, a denial of politics or a denial of the importance of politics,
the probability of general political upheavals, etc., a mistake specifically
Economist), to the outrightly “strike-ist” (the “general
strike”, as the apotheosis of the strike movement, brought up to a point
where other forms of movement are forgotten Or ignored ,and capitalism is over
come solely by a “leap” from it to a strike, pure and simple). There
is evidence that even today the indisputable fact that capitalism is
progressive, when compared with the semi-philistine “paradise” of
free competition, and that imperialism and its final victory over
“peaceful” capitalism in the leading countries of the world are
inevitable—that this fact is still capable of producing an equally great
and varied number of political and apolitical mistakes and misadventures.

With Kautsky, in particular, his clear break with Marxism has not taken the
form of a denial or neglect of politics, or of a “leap”
over the political conflicts, upheavals and transformations, so numerous and varied in the imperialist epoch; it has
not taken the form of an apology of imperialism but of a dream of “peaceful” capitalism . That “peaceful” capitalism has given way to
non-peaceful, aggressive, cataclysmic imperialism Kautsky is forced to
admit, because that is something he had admitted as far back as 1909 in the
paper [1] in which he last produced some integrated conclusions as a
Marxist. But if it is impossible. to toy in rude, simple fashion with the
dream of a straightforward retreat from imperialism to “peaceful”
capitalism, why not let these dreams, which are essentially
petty-bourgeois, take the form of innocent speculation on
“ peaceful ” “ultra-imperialism”? If the international integration of national (rather nationally isolated) imperialisms is to be
called ultra-imperialism, which “could” remove the conflicts, such as
wars, political upheavals, etc., which the petty bourgeois finds especially
unpalatable, disquieting, and alarming, why not, in that case, make an
escape from the present highly conflicting and cataclysmic epoch of
imperialism, which is the here and now, by means of innocent dreams of an
“ultra-imperialism” which is relatively peaceful, relatively lacking in
conflict and relatively uncataclysmic? Why not try to escape the acute
problems that have been and are being posed by the epoch of imperialism
that has dawned for Europe by dreaming up the possibility of it soon
passing away and being followed by a relatively “peaceful” epoch of
“ultra-imperialism” that will not require any “abrupt” tactics? Kautsky
says precisely that “such a [ultra-imperialist] new phase of
capitalism is at any rate imaginable”, but that “there are not yet enough
prerequisites to decide whether or not it is feasible” ( Die Neue Zeit , [2]
April 30, 1915, p. 144).

There is not a whit of Marxism in this urge to ignore the imperialism
which is here and to escape into the realm of an “ultra-imperialism”
which may or may not arrive. In this formulation, Marxism is recognised
in that “new phase of capitalism” which its inventor himself does not
warrant can be realised , while in the present stage (which is
already here) the petty-bourgeois and profoundly reactionary desire to
blunt the contradictions is substituted for Marxism. Kautsky
swore to be a Marxist in this coming, acute and cataclysmic
epoch, which he was forced to predict and recognise very definitely in his 1909 paper on this coming epoch. Now that this epoch
has most definitely arrived, Kautsky once again swears to be a
Marxist in the coming epoch of ultra-imperialism, which may or may not
arrive! In short, any number of promises to be a Marxist in
another epoch, not now, not under present conditions, not in this
epoch! Marxism on credit, Marxism in promises, Marxism tomorrow, a
petty-bourgeois, opportunist theory— and not only a theory —of
blunting contradictions today. This is something like the internationalism
for export which is very popular today with ardent—oh, so
ardent!—internationalists and Marxists who sympathise with every
manifestation of internationalism—in the enemy camp, anywhere, but not at
home, not among their allies; they sympathise with democracy—when it
remains an “allied” promise; they sympathise with “the self-determination of nations”, but only not of those dependent
on the nation which has the honour of having the sympathiser among its
citizens. In a word, it is one of the 1,001 varieties of hypocrisy.

Can it be denied, however, that a new phase of capitalism is
“imaginable” in the abstract after imperialism, namely,
ultra-imperialism? No, it cannot. Such a phase can be imagined. But in
practice this means becoming an opportunist, turning away from the acute
problems of the day to dream of the unacute problems of the future. In
theory this means refusing to be guided by actual developments,
forsaking them arbitrarily for such dreams. There is no doubt that
the trend of development is towards a single world trust absorbing
all enterprises without exception and all states without exception. But
this development proceeds in such circumstances, at such a pace, through
such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals—not only economic but
political, national, etc.—that inevitably imperialism will burst and
capitalism will be transformed into its opposite long before one
world trust materialises, before the “ultra-imperialist”,
world-wide amalgamation of national finance capitals takes place.

V. Ilyin

December 1915

---
Notes:
[1]

Kautsky’s pamphlet, Der Weg Zur Macht (The Way to Power), published in Berlin in
1909.

[2]

Die Neue Zeit (New Times)—the journal of the German Social-Democratic Party,
published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923. In 1885-95, it carried some
articles by Engels, who often gave advice to its editors and sharply
criticised them for any departures from Marxism. Beginning with the late
nineties, after Engels’s death, it made a regular practice of publishing
articles by revisionists. During the First World War, it adopted a
Centrist, Kautskyite stand, and supported the social-chauvinists.