V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v30; en:CW/CW23;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

“No one can compromise a revolutionary Social-Democracy if it does not compromise itself.” This saying must always be recalled and borne in mind whenever any important theoretical or tactical tenet of Marxism triumphs, or at least becomes the order of the day, and when, besides its direct and serious enemies, it is “pounced upon” by such friends as hopelessly compromise it—in plain Russian, bring it into disrepute—by turning it into a caricature. This has happened more than once in the history of Russian Social-Democracy. The victory of Marxism in the revolutionary movement at the beginning of the nineties of the last century was accompanied by the appearance of a caricature of Marxism in the shape of the “Economism” or “Strikeism” of those days, without a long struggle against which the Iskra-ists could not have upheld the fundamentals of proletarian theory and policy either against petty-bourgeois Narodism or against bourgeois liberalism. The same thing happened with Bolshevism, which won in the mass working-class movement of 1905, thanks, among other things, to the correct application of the slogan “boycott of the Tsar’s Duma”{43} during the most important battles of the Russian revolution in the autumn of 1905, and which had to survive—and overcome in struggle—a caricature of Bolshevism in 1908-1910, when Alexinsky and others raised a great hue and cry against participation in the Third Duma.{44}

The same thing is happening now. The recognition of the present war as imperialist, the pointing out of its profound connection with the imperialist epoch of capitalism, is meeting, besides serious opponents, with frivolous friends, for whom the word imperialism has become a “fashion”, and who, having learned this word by rote, are bringing the workers the most hopeless theoretical confusion, reviving a whole series of the old mistakes of the old “Economism”. Capitalism has triumphed—therefore there is no need to think about political questions, argued the old “Economists” in 1894-1901, going to the length of denying political struggle in Russia. Imperialism has triumphed—therefore there is no need to think about questions of political democracy, argue the modern “imperialist Economists”. As a specimen of such moods, of such a caricature of Marxism, the article by P. Kievsky printed above is significant, for it is the first attempt at a more or less integral literary exposition of the vacillations of thought that have been observed in some foreign circles of our party since the beginning of 1915.

The spread of “imperialist Economism” among the Marxists who have resolutely taken their stand against social-chauvinism and on the side of revolutionary internationalism in the present great crisis of socialism would be a most serious blow to our trend—and to our party—for it would compromise it from within, from its own ranks, and would turn it into a representative of caricature Marxism. That is why we must dwell on a detailed discussion of at least the most important of the countless errors in P. Kievsky’s article, however “uninteresting” this may be in itself, however often it may lead to a too elementary chewing over of too elementary truths, which have long been known and understood by the attentive and thoughtful reader from our literature of 1914 and 1915.

Let us begin with the most “central” point of P. Kievsky’s arguments, in order at once to introduce the reader to the “essence” of the new trend of “imperialist Economism”.

1. THE MARXIST ATTITUDE TO WARS AND TO “DEFENCE OF THE FATHERLAND”

P. Kievsky is himself convinced, and wants to convince his readers, that he “disagrees” only with the self-determination of nations, with Section 9 of our Party Programme. He tries very angrily to reject the accusation that he is radically departing from Marxism in general on the question of democracy, that he is a “traitor” (P. Kievsky’s venomous quotation marks) to Marxism in anything fundamental. But the point is that as soon as our author began to argue about his supposedly particular and separate disagreement, as soon as he began to adduce arguments, considerations, etc., it at once became evident that he was departing from Marxism on the whole line. Take Section b (Part 2) of P. Kievsky’s article. “This demand” (i.e., self-determination of nations) “leads directly (!!) to social-patriotism,” our author proclaims, and explains that the “treacherous” slogan of defence of the fatherland is a conclusion “drawn with the most complete (!) logical (!) validity from the right of nations to self-determination....” Self-determination, in his opinion, is “a sanctioning of the treachery of the French and Belgian social-patriots, who are defending this independence” (the national-state independence of France and Belgium) “with arms in hand—they are doing what the supporters of ‘self-determination’ only talk about”.... “Defence of the fatherland belongs to the arsenal of our worst enemies”.... “We absolutely refuse to understand how one can be simultaneously against defence of the fatherland and for self-determination, against the fatherland and for it.”

Thus writes P. Kievsky. He has clearly failed to understand our resolutions against the slogan of defence of the fatherland in the present war. We must take what is written in black and white in these resolutions and explain once more the meaning of plain Russian speech.

The resolution of our party, adopted at the Berne Conference in March 1915, and bearing the title: “The Slogan of Defence of the Fatherland”, begins with the words: “The real essence of the present war consists” in such and such.

The reference is to the present war. It is impossible to say this more clearly in Russian. The words “real essence” show that we must distinguish the apparent from the real, the outward from the essential, words from deeds. The phrases about defence of the fatherland in the present war fraudulently represent the imperialist war of 1914-1916, a war for the partition of colonies, for the plunder of foreign lands, etc., as a national war. In order not to leave the slightest possibility of distorting our views, the resolution adds a special paragraph on “really national wars”, which “occurred especially (note: especially does not mean exclusively!) in the epoch 1789-1871”.

The resolution explains that “the basis” of these “really” national wars “was a lengthy process of mass national movements, the struggle against absolutism and feudalism, the overthrow of national oppression....”[22]

That seems clear, doesn’t it? In the present imperialist war, which has been engendered by all the conditions of the imperialist epoch, i.e., which did not occur by chance, is not an exception, not a departure from the general and typical, the phrases about defence of the fatherland are a deception of the people, for this is not a national war. In a really national war the words “defence of the fatherland” are not a deception, and we are not opposed to it. Such (really national) wars occurred “especially” in 1789-1871, and the resolution, without denying by a single word the possibility of such wars even now, explains how a really national war is to be distinguished from an imperialist war camouflaged by deceptive national slogans. Namely, for the purpose of distinction we must examine whether “the basis” is “a lengthy process of mass national movements”, “the overthrow of national oppression”.

The resolution on “pacifism” says outright: “Social-Democrats cannot deny the positive significance of revolutionary wars, i.e., not imperialist wars, but such as were waged, for example” (note this: “for example”), “from 1789 to 1871 with the object of overthrowing national oppression....”[23] Could our party’s resolution of 1915 speak of national wars, examples of which occurred in 1789-1871, and point out that we do not deny the positive significance of such wars, if such wars were not recognised as possible even now? Clearly it could not.

A commentary on our party’s resolutions, i.e., a popular explanation of them, is the pamphlet by Lenin and Zinoviev, Socialism and War. On page 5 of this pamphlet it is stated in black and white that “socialists have recognised and still recognise the legitimacy, progressiveness and justice of ‘defence of the fatherland’ or of a defensive war” only in the sense of “overthrowing alien national oppression”. An example is given: Persia against Russia, “etc.”, and it is said: “these would be just, defensive wars, irrespective of who attacked first, and every socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, and unequal states against the oppressing, slavish, predatory ‘Great’ Powers”.[24]

The pamphlet was published in August 1915, in German and French. P. Kievsky knows it very well. Neither P. Kievsky nor anyone else has ever once raised any objection either to the resolution on the slogan of defence of the fatherland, or to the resolution on pacifism, or to the interpretation of these resolutions in the pamphlet—not once! The question arises: are we slandering P. Kievsky when we say that he has completely failed to understand Marxism, if this writer, who from March 1915 raised no objection to our party’s views on the war, now, in August 1916, in an article on self-determination, i.e., in an article on what is supposedly a particular question, reveals a striking failure to understand the general question?

P. Kievsky calls the slogan of defence of the fatherland “treacherous”. We can calmly assure him that any slogan is and always will be “treacherous” for those who repeat it mechanically, without understanding its meaning, without going into the matter, confining themselves to remembering words without analysing their sense.

What is “defence of the fatherland”, generally speaking? Is it some scientific concept from the sphere of economics, politics, etc.? No. It is simply the most current, common, and sometimes simply the philistine expression for justifying war. Nothing more, absolutely nothing! The only thing that can be “treacherous” about it is that philistines are capable of justifying any war by saying “we are defending the fatherland”, whereas Marxism, which does not stoop to the philistine level, demands a historical analysis of each separate war in order to decide whether this war can be regarded as progressive, serving the interests of democracy or the proletariat, and in that sense legitimate, just, etc.

The slogan of defence of the fatherland is very often a philistine-unconscious justification of war, when there is an inability to analyse historically the significance and meaning of each separate war.

Marxism provides such an analysis and says: if the “real essence” of a war consists, for example, in overthrowing alien national oppression (which is especially typical of Europe in 1789-1871), then the war is progressive from the standpoint of the oppressed state or nation. If the “real essence” of a war is the redivision of colonies, division of spoils, plunder of foreign lands (and such is the war of 1914-1916), then the phrase about defence of the fatherland is “a sheer deception of the people”.

How is the “real essence” of a war to be found, how is it to be defined? War is the continuation of politics. We must study the politics before the war, the politics that led to and brought about the war. If the politics was imperialist, i.e., protecting the interests of finance capital, robbing and oppressing colonies and foreign countries, then the war arising from this politics is an imperialist war. If the politics was national-liberation, i.e., expressing the mass movement against national oppression, then the war arising from such politics is a national-liberation war.

The philistine does not understand that war is a “continuation of politics”, and therefore confines himself to the fact that “the enemy is attacking”, “the enemy has invaded my country”, without analysing the causes of the war, the classes that are waging it, and the political object with which it is being waged. P. Kievsky sinks completely to the level of such a philistine when he says that the Germans have occupied Belgium, therefore from the standpoint of self-determination “the Belgian social-patriots are right”, or: part of France has been occupied by the Germans, therefore “Guesde may be satisfied”, for “it is a question of territory inhabited by that nation” (and not by an alien nation).

What matters to the philistine is where the troops are, who is winning at the moment. What matters to the Marxist is what this particular war is being waged for, during which the troops may be victorious now on one side, now on the other.

What is this war being waged for? This is indicated in our resolution (which is based on the politics of the belligerent powers, the politics they have been pursuing for decades before the war). England, France and Russia are fighting to preserve the colonies they have looted and to loot Turkey, etc. Germany is fighting to take colonies from them and to loot Turkey herself, etc. Let us assume that the Germans capture even Paris and Petrograd. Will that change the character of the present war? Not in the least. The aim of the Germans—and what is more important, the policy that would be feasible if the Germans were victorious—would then be to take away colonies, to dominate Turkey, to take away alien-national regions, e.g., Poland, etc., but not at all to establish alien-national oppression over the French or Russians. The real essence of the present war is not national but imperialist. In other words, the war is not being waged because one side is overthrowing national oppression and the other is defending it. It is being waged between two groups of oppressors, between two robbers, over the division of the spoils, over who is to loot Turkey and the colonies.

In short: a war between imperialist (i.e., oppressing a number of foreign peoples, and tying them down by dependence on finance capital, etc.) Great Powers, or allied with them, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914-1916. “Defence of the fatherland” in this war is a deception, a justification of the war.

A war of the oppressed (e.g., colonial peoples) against the imperialist, i.e., oppressor, powers is a really national war. Such a war is possible even now. “Defence of the fatherland” on the part of a nationally oppressed country against the nationally oppressing country is not a deception, and socialists are not at all opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

Self-determination of nations means the same as the struggle for complete national liberation, for complete independence, against annexations, and socialists cannot reject such a struggle—in any form, up to an uprising or war—without ceasing to be socialists.

P. Kievsky thinks he is fighting Plekhanov: Plekhanov, he says, pointed to the connection between self-determination of nations and defence of the fatherland! P. Kievsky believed Plekhanov that this connection is really what Plekhanov represents it to be. Having believed Plekhanov, P. Kievsky took fright and decided that self-determination must be rejected in order to escape Plekhanov’s conclusions.... Great trustfulness towards Plekhanov, great fright, too, but not a trace of reflection on what Plekhanov’s error consists in!

In order to represent this war as a national war, the social-chauvinists refer to the self-determination of nations. The only correct way to fight them is to show that this is not a struggle for the liberation of nations, but a struggle to decide which of the great predators is to oppress more nations. To go to the length of denying a war that is really waged for the liberation of nations is to produce the worst caricature of Marxism. Plekhanov and the French social-chauvinists refer to the republic in France in order to justify “defence” of it against the monarchy in Germany. If we were to argue as P. Kievsky argues, we should have to be against the republic or against a war really waged for the defence of the republic!! The German social-chauvinists refer to universal suffrage and compulsory education for all in Germany in order to justify “defence” of Germany against tsarism. If we were to argue as Kievsky argues, we should have to be either against universal suffrage and education for all, or against a war really waged for the preservation of political freedom from attempts to abolish it!

K. Kautsky was a Marxist before the war of 1914-1916, and a number of his most important works and statements will forever remain models of Marxism. On August 26, 1910, Kautsky wrote in Die Neue Zeit concerning the impending and threatening war:

“In a war between Germany and England the issue is not democracy but world domination, i.e., the exploitation of the world. This is not a question on which Social-Democrats should side with the exploiters of their own nation” (Die Neue Zeit, 28. Jahrg., Bd. 2, S. 776).

Here is an excellent Marxist formulation, fully coinciding with ours, fully exposing the present Kautsky, who has turned from Marxism to the defence of social-chauvinism, and very clearly elucidating the principles of the Marxist attitude to wars (we shall return to this formulation in the press). Wars are a continuation of politics; therefore, when there is a struggle for democracy, a war for democracy is possible; self-determination of nations is only one of the democratic demands, and is in principle no different from the others. “World domination” is, briefly speaking, the content of imperialist politics, of which imperialist war is the continuation. To deny “defence of the fatherland”, i.e., participation in a democratic war, is an absurdity that has nothing in common with Marxism. To embellish an imperialist war by applying to it the concept of “defence of the fatherland”, i.e., representing it as a democratic war, means deceiving the workers and going over to the side of the reactionary bourgeoisie.

2. “OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEW EPOCH”

P. Kievsky, to whom belongs the expression placed in quotation marks, constantly speaks of the “new epoch”. Unfortunately, here too his arguments are erroneous.

Our party’s resolutions speak of the present war, which is engendered by the general conditions of the imperialist epoch. The relation between the “epoch” and the “present war” is correctly stated by us in the Marxist way: to be a Marxist one must make a concrete appraisal of each separate war. In order to understand why an imperialist war, i.e., the most reactionary and anti-democratic war in its political significance, could and had to arise between the Great Powers, many of which in 1789-1871 stood at the head of the struggle for democracy, we must understand the general conditions of the imperialist epoch, i.e., the transformation of capitalism in the advanced countries into imperialism.

P. Kievsky has completely distorted this relation between the “epoch” and the “present war”. According to him, to speak concretely means to speak about the “epoch”! That is just wrong.

The epoch of 1789-1871 is a special epoch for Europe. That is indisputable. It is impossible to understand any national-liberation war, which is especially typical of that time, without understanding the general conditions of that epoch. Does that mean that all wars of that epoch were national-liberation wars? Of course not. To say that would be to go to the length of absurdity and to replace a concrete study of each separate war by a ridiculous pattern. In 1789-1871 there were both colonial wars and wars between reactionary empires oppressing a number of foreign nations.

The question arises: does it follow from the fact that advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new epoch of imperialism that wars are now possible only of an imperialist type? That would be an absurd assertion, an inability to distinguish the given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of the diverse possible phenomena of the epoch. An epoch is called an epoch because it embraces the sum total of diverse phenomena and wars, both typical and non-typical, both big and small, both those characteristic of advanced countries and those characteristic of backward countries. To brush aside these concrete questions by means of general phrases about the “epoch”, as P. Kievsky does, is to abuse the concept “epoch”. We shall now give one of many examples, in order not to be making unsupported statements. But first we must mention that one group of Lefts, namely the German “International” group, in its theses published in No. 3 of the Bulletin of the Berne Executive Commission (February 29, 1916), advanced in Section 5 a clearly incorrect assertion: “In the era of this unbridled imperialism there can no longer be any national wars.” We analysed this assertion in the Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata.[25] Here we will only note that, although this theoretical proposition has long been familiar to all who are interested in the internationalist movement (we fought against it at the enlarged meeting of the Berne Executive Commission in the spring of 1916), up to now no group has repeated it or adopted it. And P. Kievsky, in August 1916, when he wrote his article, did not say a single word in the spirit of such or a similar assertion.

This must be noted for the following reason: if such or a similar theoretical assertion had been made, then it would be possible to speak of a theoretical divergence. But since no such assertion is made, we are compelled to say: what we have before us is not a different understanding of the “epoch”, not a theoretical divergence, but only a phrase thrown out at random, only an abuse of the word “epoch”.

Example: “Is it not like” (self-determination), writes P. Kievsky at the very beginning of his article, “the right to receive gratis 10,000 desyatinas on Mars? This question cannot be answered otherwise than quite concretely, in connection with an appraisal of the whole present epoch; for it is one thing to have the right of nations to self-determination in the epoch of the formation of national states, as the best forms for the development of the productive forces at their then level, and another thing to have this right when these forms, the forms of the national state, have become fetters on their development. Between the epoch of the self-assertion of capitalism and the national state and the epoch of the destruction of the national state and the eve of the destruction of capitalism itself there is a vast distance. To speak ‘in general’, outside time and space, is not the way of a Marxist.”

This argument is a specimen of the caricature use of the concept “imperialist epoch”. Precisely because this concept is new and important, we must fight against the caricature! What is the point when it is said that the forms of the national state have become fetters, etc.? It is a question of the advanced capitalist countries, primarily Germany, France and England, whose participation in the present war has made it primarily an imperialist war. In these countries, which until now have led humanity forward, especially in 1789-1871, the process of the formation of the national state has been completed; in these countries the national movement is an irrevocable past, to revive which would be a ridiculous reactionary utopia. The national movement of the French, English and Germans has long been completed; what is now on the historical order of the day is something else: the nations that were liberators have become oppressor nations, nations of imperialist plunder, living through “the eve of the destruction of capitalism”.

And the other nations?

P. Kievsky repeats, like a learned rule, that Marxists must argue “concretely”, but does not apply it. In our theses we purposely gave a specimen of a concrete answer, and P. Kievsky did not wish to point out our mistake, if he saw a mistake here.

In our theses (Section 6) it is stated that in order to be concrete we must distinguish at least three different types of countries in regard to the question of self-determination. (It is clear that in general theses it would be impossible to speak of each separate country.) The first type is the advanced countries of Western Europe (and America), where the national movement is a thing of the past. The second type is Eastern Europe, where it is a thing of the present. The third type is the semi-colonies and colonies, where it is to a large extent a thing of the future.[26]

Is this correct or not? P. Kievsky should have directed his criticism to this. But he does not even notice what the theoretical questions consist of! He does not see that as long as he has not refuted the above proposition (in Section 6) of our theses—and it cannot be refuted, because it is correct—his arguments about the “epoch” are like a man who “brandishes” a sword but does not strike.

“Contrary to the opinion of V. Ilyin,” he writes at the end of his article, “we believe that for the majority (!) of Western (!) countries the national question is not solved”....

So, presumably, the national movement of the French, Spaniards, English, Dutch, Germans and Italians was not completed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and earlier? At the beginning of the article the concept of the “epoch of imperialism” is distorted in such a way as to suggest that the national movement is completed in general, and not only in the advanced Western countries. At the end of the same article the “national question” is declared “not solved” precisely in the Western countries!! Is that not confusion?

In the Western countries the national movement is a long-past affair. The “fatherland” in England, France, Germany, etc., has sung its song, played its historical role, i.e., it can no longer give a national movement that would be progressive, raising new masses of people to a new economic and political life. What is on the historical order of the day there is not the transition from feudalism or from patriarchal savagery to national progress, to a culturally and politically free fatherland, but the transition from an outlived, capitalist-overripe “fatherland” to socialism.

In Eastern Europe the situation is different. For the Ukrainians and Byelorussians, for example, only a man living in dreams on Mars could deny that the national movement is not yet completed here, that the awakening of the masses to the possession of their native language and its literature (which is a necessary condition and concomitant of the full development of capitalism, of the complete penetration of exchange down to the last peasant family) is still taking place here. The “fatherland” here has not yet sung its whole historical song. “Defence of the fatherland” here can still be the defence of democracy, of the native language, of political liberty against the oppressor nations, against the Middle Ages, whereas the English, French, Germans and Italians are now lying when they speak of defending their fatherland in the present war, for in fact they are defending not their native language or the freedom of their national development, but their slavish rights, their colonies, the “spheres of influence” of their finance capital in foreign countries, etc.

In the semi-colonies and colonies the national movement is historically even younger than in Eastern Europe.

To what the words about “highly developed countries” and the imperialist epoch refer; what is the “special” position of Russia (the title of Section d in Chapter 2 of P. Kievsky’s article) and not only of Russia; where the national-liberation movement is a lying phrase and where it is a living and progressive reality—all this P. Kievsky has absolutely failed to understand.

3. WHAT IS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS?

The main argument of the opponents of self-determination is the reference to its “impracticability” under capitalism in general or under imperialism. The word “impracticability” is often used in various and inexactly defined meanings. Therefore, in our theses we demanded what is necessary in every theoretical discussion: an elucidation of the sense in which “impracticability” is spoken of. And not confining ourselves to the question, we made a start in such an elucidation. In the sense of political difficulty of achievement or impracticability without a series of revolutions, all the demands of democracy are “impracticable” under imperialism.

In the sense of economic impossibility, to speak of the impracticability of self-determination is fundamentally wrong.

Such was our proposition. Here is the crux of the theoretical divergence, and our opponents should have directed all their attention to this question in any serious discussion.

Now see how P. Kievsky argues this question.

He definitely rejects the interpretation of impracticability in the sense of “difficulty of achievement” for political reasons. He answers the question directly in the sense of economic impossibility.

“Does it mean,” he writes, “that self-determination under imperialism is as impracticable as labour money under commodity production?” And P. Kievsky answers: “Yes, it does! For we are speaking precisely of a logical contradiction between two social categories: ‘imperialism’ and ‘self-determination of nations’, the same logical contradiction as exists between two other categories: labour money and commodity production. Imperialism is the negation of self-determination, and no conjurer will succeed in reconciling self-determination with imperialism.”

However terrible this angry word “conjurers”, which P. Kievsky hurls at us, we must nevertheless point out to him that he simply does not understand what economic analysis means. “Logical contradiction”—provided, of course, that logical thinking is correct—should not exist either in economic or in political analysis. Therefore, to refer to “logical contradiction” in general, when the point is precisely to give an economic analysis and not a political one, is quite out of place. Both the economic and the political belong to “social categories”. Consequently, P. Kievsky, having first answered decisively and directly: “yes, it does” (i.e., self-determination is as impracticable as labour money under commodity production), in fact got off by beating about the bush, and did not give an economic analysis.

How is it proved that labour money is impracticable under commodity production? By economic analysis. This analysis, which, like any analysis, does not admit of “logical contradiction”, takes economic and only economic (and not “social” in general) categories and from them deduces the impossibility of labour money. In the first chapter of Capital there is no mention of any politics, of any political form, of any “social categories” in general; the analysis takes only the economic, the exchange of commodities, the development of the exchange of commodities. Economic analysis shows—by means, of course, of “logical” reasoning—that labour money is impracticable under commodity production. P. Kievsky does not even attempt to begin an economic analysis! He confuses the economic essence of imperialism with its political tendencies, as can be seen from the very first sentence of the first paragraph of his article. Here is that sentence:

“Industrial capital was the synthesis of pre-capitalist production and commercial-usurers’ capital. Loan capital was at the service of industrial capital. Now capitalism is overcoming the various forms of capital, a higher, unified type of it is arising, finance capital, and therefore the whole epoch can be called the epoch of finance capital, the adequate system of foreign policy of which is imperialism.”

Economically, this definition is worthless: instead of exact economic categories there are only phrases. But it is impossible to dwell on this now. The important thing is that P. Kievsky declares imperialism to be a “system of foreign policy”.

This, firstly, is essentially an incorrect repetition of Kautsky’s incorrect idea.

This, secondly, is a purely political, only political definition of imperialism. By defining imperialism as a “system of policy”, P. Kievsky wants to evade the economic analysis which he promised to give when he declared that self-determination is “as” impracticable, i.e., economically impracticable, under imperialism as labour money under commodity production![27]

In his controversy with the Lefts, Kautsky declared that imperialism is “only a system of foreign policy” (namely, annexations), that it is impossible to call a definite economic stage, a stage of development, of capitalism imperialism.

Kautsky is wrong. It is, of course, not clever to argue about words. It is impossible to forbid the use of the “word” imperialism in one way or another. But it is necessary to define concepts exactly if we want to carry on a discussion.

Economically, imperialism (or the “epoch” of finance capital—it is not a question of words) is the highest stage of capitalist development, the stage when production has become so large and so large-scale that monopoly has replaced free competition. That is the economic essence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in trusts, syndicates, etc., in the omnipotence of the giant banks, in the buying up of sources of raw materials, etc., in the concentration of bank capital, etc. The whole point is economic monopoly.

The political superstructure over the new economy, over monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the turn from democracy to political reaction. Free competition corresponds to democracy. Monopoly corresponds to political reaction. “Finance capital strives for domination, not for freedom,” Rudolf Hilferding rightly says in his Finance Capital.

To single out “foreign policy” from politics in general, or, still more, to oppose foreign policy to home policy, is fundamentally wrong, and un-Marxist and unscientific. Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards the violation of democracy, towards reaction. In this sense it is indisputable that imperialism is the “negation” of democracy in general, of all democracy, and not just of one of the demands of democracy, namely, self-determination of nations.

Being the “negation” of democracy, imperialism “negates” democracy in the national question too (i.e., self-determination of nations) “in the same way”, i.e., it strives to violate it; its achievement is just as much and in the same sense more difficult under imperialism (compared with pre-monopoly capitalism) as the achievement of a republic, a militia, the election of officials by the people, etc., is more difficult under imperialism. There can be no question of economic “impracticability”.

P. Kievsky was probably led into error here also by the following circumstance (apart from his general failure to understand the requirements of economic analysis): from the philistine standpoint, annexation (i.e., the addition of an alien-national region against the will of its population, i.e., the violation of the self-determination of the nation) is regarded as equivalent to the “expansion” of finance capital over a larger economic territory.

But one cannot tackle theoretical questions with philistine notions.

Imperialism is, economically, monopoly capitalism. For monopoly to be complete, competitors must be eliminated not only from the home market (the market of the given state), but also from the foreign market, from the whole world. Is there an economic possibility “in the era of finance capital” of eliminating competition even in a foreign state? Of course there is: the means are financial dependence and the buying up of sources of raw materials, and then of all the competitor’s enterprises.

The American trusts are the highest expression of the economics of imperialism, or monopoly capitalism. In order to eliminate a competitor, the trusts do not confine themselves to economic means but constantly resort to political and even criminal means. But it would be a profound mistake to think that the monopoly of the trusts is economically impracticable with purely economic methods of struggle. On the contrary, reality proves its “practicability” at every step: the trusts undermine the credit of the competitor through the banks (the owners of the trusts are the owners of the banks: buying up of shares); the trusts undermine the supply of materials to the competitor (the owners of the trusts are the owners of the railways: buying up of shares); the trusts for a time reduce prices below cost price, spending millions on this in order to ruin the competitor and buy up his enterprises, his sources of raw materials (mines, land, etc.).

Here is a purely economic analysis of the power of the trusts and their expansion. Here is a purely economic path to expansion: the buying up of enterprises, establishments, sources of raw materials.

The big finance capital of one country can always buy up the competitors of another, politically independent, country, and constantly does so. Economically this is quite practicable. Economic “annexation” is quite “practicable” without political annexation and is constantly met with. In the literature on imperialism you will find at every step such indications, for example, that Argentina is in fact a “commercial colony” of England, that Portugal is in fact a “vassal” of England, etc. That is true: economic dependence on the English banks, indebtedness to England, the buying up by England of local railways, mines, lands, etc., all this makes the said countries “annexations” of England in the economic sense, without violating the political independence of these countries.

Self-determination of nations means their political independence. Imperialism strives to violate it, because political annexation often makes economic annexation more convenient, cheaper (easier to bribe officials, to obtain concessions, to pass a favourable law, etc.), handier, quieter—just as imperialism strives to replace democracy in general by oligarchy. But to talk about the economic “impracticability” of self-determination under imperialism is simply to put the cart before the horse.

P. Kievsky evades theoretical difficulties by means of one very easy and light-weight device, which in German is called “burschenschaftliche” expressions, i.e., student-like, simple, crude, such as are used (and natural) at student drinking-bouts. Here is a specimen:

“Universal suffrage,” he writes, “the eight-hour working day, and even the republic are logically compatible with imperialism, although imperialism is far from smiling on them (!!), and therefore their achievement is extremely difficult.”

We would have nothing at all against the burschenschaftliche expression: the republic does not “smile on” imperialism—a