Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

A POPULAR OUTLINE

IX. CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM

By the critique of imperialism, in the broad sense of the term,
we mean the attitude of the different classes of society towards
imperialist policy in connection with their general ideology.

The enormous dimensions of finance capital concentrated in a
few hands and creating an extraordinarily dense and widespread
network of relationships and connections which subordinates not
only the small and medium, but also the very small capitalists and
small masters, on the one hand, and the increasingly intense
struggle waged against other national state groups of financiers
for the division of the world and domination over other countries,
on the other hand, cause the propertied classes to go over
entirely to the side of imperialism. “General” enthusiasm over the
prospects of imperialism, furious defence of it and painting it in
the brightest colours—such are the signs of the times. Imperialist ideology also penetrates the working class. No
Chinese Wall separates it from the other classes. The leaders of
the present-day, so-called, “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany
are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in
words and imperialists in deeds; but as early as 1902, Hobson
noted the existence in Britain of “Fabian imperialists” who
belonged to the opportunist Fabian Society.

Bourgeois scholars and publicists usually come out in defence
of imperialism in a somewhat veiled form; they obscure its
complete domination and its deep-going roots, strive to push
specific and secondary details into the forefront and do their
very best to distract attention from essentials by means of
absolutely ridiculous schemes for “reform,” such as police
supervision of the trusts or banks, etc. Cynical and frank
imperialists who are bold enough to admit the absurdity of the
idea of reforming the fundamental characteristics of imperialism
are a rarer phenomenon.

Here is an example. The German imperialists attempt, in the
magazine Archives of World Economy , to follow the national emancipation movements in the colonies, particularly, of
course, in colonies other than those belonging to Germany. They
note the unrest and the protest movements in India, the movement
in Natal (South Africa), in the Dutch East Indies, etc. One of
them, commenting on an English report of a conference held on June
28-30, 1910, of representatives of various subject nations and
races, of peoples of Asia, Africa and Europe who are under foreign
rule, writes as follows in appraising the speeches delivered at
this conference: “We are told that we must fight imperialism; that
the ruling states should recognise the right of subject peoples to
independence; that an international tribunal should supervise the
fulfilment of treaties concluded between the great powers and weak
peoples. Further than the expression of these pious wishes they do
not go. We see no trace of understanding of the fact that
imperialism is inseparably bound up with capitalism in its present
form and that, therefore [!!], an open struggle against
imperialism would be hopeless, unless, perhaps, the fight were to
be confined to protests against certain of its especially
abhorrent excesses.” [1]

Since the reform of the basis of imperialism is a deception, a “pious wish”, since the bourgeois
representatives of the oppressed nations go no “further” forward,
the bourgeois representative of an oppressing nation goes
“further” backward , to servility towards imperialism under cover of the claim to be “scientific.” That is also
“logic”!

The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis
of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it
engenders, or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are
fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the
specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere
and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the
financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a
petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at
the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist
countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not
only unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition,
which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became
merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky
and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.

In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain
in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists,” the
last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war
to be “criminal,” regarded the annexation of foreign territories
as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of
Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the
independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed
it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When
the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when
he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer
self-government; it is despotism.” [2]

But as long as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism
and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the
foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces
engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development, it
remained a “pious wish”.

This is also the main attitude taken by Hobson in his critique
of imperialism. Hobson anticipated Kautsky in protesting against
the “inevitability of imperialism” argument, and in urging the
necessity of “increasing the consuming capacity” of the people
(under capitalism!). The petty-bourgeois point of view in the
critique of imperialism, the omnipotence of the banks, the
financial oligarchy, etc., is adopted by the authors I have often
quoted, such as Agahd, A. Lansburgh, L. Eschwege, and among the
French writers Victor Berard, author of a superficial book
entitled England and Imperialism which appeared in
1900. All these authors, who make no claim to be Marxists,
contrast imperialism with free competition and democracy, condemn
the Baghdad railway scheme, which is leading to conflicts and war,
utter “pious wishes” for peace, etc. This applies also to the
compiler of international stock and share issue statistics,
A. Neymarck, who, after calculating the thousands of millions of
francs representing “international” securities, exclaimed in 1912:
“Is it possible to believe that peace may be disturbed ... that,
in the face of these enormous figures, anyone would risk starting
a
war?” [3]

Such simple-mindedness on the part of the bourgeois economists
is not surprising; moreover, it is in their interest to
pretend to be so naive and to talk “seriously” about peace under
imperialism. But what remains of Kautsky’s Marxism, when, in 1914,
1915 and 1916, he takes up the same bourgeois-reformist point of
view and affirms that “everybody is agreed” (imperialists,
pseudo-socialists and social-pacifists) on the matter of peace? Instead
of an analysis of imperialism and an exposure of the depths of its
contradictions, we have nothing but a reformist “pious wish” to
wave them aside, to evade them.

Here is a sample of Kautsky’s economic criticism of imperialism. He takes the statistics of the British export and
import trade with Egypt for 1872 and 1912; it seems that this
export and import trade has grown more slowly than British foreign
trade as a whole. From this Kautsky concludes that “we have no
reason to suppose that without military occupation the growth of
British trade with Egypt would have been less, simply as a result
of the mere operation of economic factors.” “The urge of capital
to expand ... can be best promoted, not by the violent methods of
imperialism, but by peaceful democracy.” [4]

This argument of Kautsky’s, which is repeated in every key by
his Russian armour-bearer (and Russian shielder of the social-chauvinists),
Mr. Spectator, constitutes the basis of
Kautskian critique of imperialism, and that is why we must deal
with it in greater detail. We will begin with a quotation from
Hilferding, whose conclusions Kautsky on many occasions, and
notably in April 1915, has declared to have been “unanimously
adopted by all socialist theoreticians.”

“It is not the business of the proletariat,” writes Hilferding
“to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of
the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the
state. The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of
finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but
socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal
of restoring free competition—which has now become a reactionary ideal—but the complete elimination of
competition by the abolition of capitalism.” [5]

Kautsky broke with Marxism by advocating in the epoch of
finance capital a “reactionary ideal,” “peaceful democracy,” “the
mere operation of economic factors,” for objectively this
ideal drags us back from monopoly to non-monopoly capitalism, and
is a reformist swindle.

Trade with Egypt (or with any other colony or semi-colony)
“would have grown more” without military occupation, without imperialism, and without finance capital. What does this
mean? That capitalism would have developed more rapidly if free
competition had not been restricted by monopolies in general, or
by the “connections,” yoke (i.e., also the monopoly) of finance
capital, or by the monopolist possession of colonies by certain
countries?

Kautsky’s argument can have no other meaning; and this “meaning” is meaningless. Let us assume that free
competition, without any sort of monopoly, would have developed
capitalism and trade more rapidly. But the more rapidly trade and
capitalism develop, the greater is the concentration of production
and capital which gives rise to monopoly. And monopolies
have already arisen—precisely out of free competition! Even if monopolies have now begun to retard progress,
it is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has
become impossible after it has given rise to monopoly.

Whichever way one turns Kautsky’s argument, one will find
nothing in it except reaction and bourgeois reformism.

Even if we correct this argument and say, as Spectator says,
that the trade of the colonies with Britain is now developing more
slowly than their trade with other countries, it does not save
Kautsky; for it is also monopoly, also imperialism that is beating Great Britain, only it is the
monopoly and imperialism of another country (America, Germany). It
is known that the cartels have given rise to a new and peculiar
form of protective tariffs, i.e., goods suitable for export are
protected (Engels noted this in Vol. III of
Capital [12] ). It is known, too, that the cartels add finance capital have a system
peculiar to themselves, that of “exporting goods at cut-rate
prices”, or “dumping,” as the English call it: within a given
country the cartel sells its goods at high monopoly prices, but
sells them abroad at a much lower price to undercut the
competitor, to enlarge its own production to the utmost, etc. If
Germany’s trade with the British colonies is developing more
rapidly than Great Britain’s, it only proves that German
imperialism is younger, stronger and better organised than British
imperialism, is superior to it; but it by no means proves the
“superiority” of free trade, for it is not a fight between free
trade and protection and colonial dependence, but between two
rival imperialisms, two monopolies, two groups of finance
capital. The superiority of German imperialism over British
imperialism is more potent than the wall of colonial frontiers or
of protective tariffs: to use this as an “argument” in favour of free trade and “peaceful democracy” is banal, it means
forgetting the essential features and characteristics of
imperialism, substituting petty-bourgeois reformism for
Marxism.

It is interesting to note that even the bourgeois economist,
A. Lansburgh, whose criticism of imperialism is as petty-bourgeois
as Kautsky’s, nevertheless got closer to a more scientific study
of trade statistics. He did not compare one single country, chosen
at random, and one single colony with the other countries; he
examined the export trade of an imperialist country: (1) with
countries which are financially dependent upon it, and borrow
money from it; and (2) with countries which are financially
independent. He obtained the following results:

| EXPORT TRADE OF GERMANY (000,000 marks) |
| --- |
| To countries financially dependent on Germany | 1889 | 1908 | Per cent increase |
| Rumania | 48.2 | 70.8 | 47 |
| Portugal | 19.0 | 32.8 | 73 |
| Argentina | 60.7 | 147.0 | 143 |
| Brazil | 48.7 | 84.5 | 73 |
| Chile | 28.3 | 64.0 | 114 |
| Total | 234.8 | 451.5 | 92 |
| To
countries financially independent of Germany | | | |
| Great Britain | 651.8 | 997.4 | 53 |
| France | 210.2 | 437.9 | 108 |
| Belgium | 137.2 | 322.8 | 135 |
| Switzerland | 177.4 | 401.1 | 127 |
| Australia | 21.2 | 64.5 | 205 |
| Dutch East Indies | 8.8 | 40.7 | 363 |
| Total | 1,206.6 | 2,264.4 | 87 |

Lansburgh did not draw conclusions and therefore, strangely enough, failed to observe that if the figures prove
anything at all, they prove that he is wrong, for the exports to countries financially dependent on Germany have grown
more rapidly, if only slightly, than exports to the countries which are financially independent. (I emphasise the
“if”, for Lansburgh’s figures are far from complete.)

Tracing the connection between exports and loans, Lansburgh
writes:

“In 1890-91, a Rumanian loan was floated through the German
banks, which had already in previous years made advances on this
loan. It was used chiefly to purchase railway materials in
Germany. In 1891, German exports to Rumania amounted to 55 million
marks. The following year they dropped to 39.4 million marks and,
with fluctuations, to 25.4 million in 1900. Only in very recent
years have they regained the level of 1891, thanks to two new
loans.

“German exports to Portugal rose, following the loans of 1888-
to 21,100,000 (1890); then, in the two following years, they
dropped to 16,200,000 and 7,400,000, and regained their former
level only in 1903.

“The figures of German trade with Argentina are still more
striking. Loans were floated in 1888 and 1890; German exports to
Argentina reached 60,700,000 marks (1889). Two years later they
amounted to only 18,600,000 marks, less than one-third of the
previous figure. It was not until 1901 that they regained and
surpassed the level of 1889, and then only as a result of new
loans floated by the state and by municipalities, with advances to
build power stations, and with other credit operations.

“Exports to Chile, as a consequence of the loan of 1889, rose
to 45,200,000 marks (in 1892), and a year later dropped to
22,500,000 marks. A new Chilean loan floated by the German banks
in 1906 was followed by a rise of exports to 84,700,000 marks in
1907, only to fall again to 52,400,000 marks in
1908.” [6]

From these facts Lansburgh draws the amusing petty-bourgeois
moral of how unstable and irregular export trade is when it is
bound up with loans, how bad it is to invest capital abroad
instead of “naturally” and “harmoniously” developing home
industry, how “costly” are the millions in bakshish that Krupp has
to pay in floating foreign loans, etc. But the facts tell us
clearly: the increase in exports is connected with just these swindling tricks of finance capital, which is not concerned
with bourgeois morality, but with skinning the ox twice—first, it pockets the profits from the loan; then it pockets other
profits from the same loan which the borrower uses to make purchases from Krupp, or to purchase railway material from
the Steel Syndicate, etc.

I repeat that I do not by any means consider Lansburgh’s
figures to be perfect; but I had to quote them because they are
more scientific than Kautsky’s and Spectator’s and because
Lansburgh showed the correct way to approach the question. In
discussing the significance of finance capital in regard to
exports, etc., one must be able to single out the connection of
exports especially and solely with the tricks of the financiers,
especially and solely with the sale of goods by cartels,
etc. Simply to compare colonies with non-colonies, one imperialism
with another imperialism, one semi-colony or colony (Egypt) with
all other countries, is to evade and to obscure the very
essence of the question.

Kautsky’s theoretical critique of imperialism has nothing in
common with Marxism and serves only as a preamble to propaganda
for peace and unity with the opportunists and the social-chauvinists, precisely for the reason that it evades and
obscures the very profound and fundamental contradictions of
imperialism: the contradictions between monopoly and free
competition which exists side by side with it, between the
gigantic “operations” (and gigantic profits) of finance capital
and “honest” trade in the free market, the contradiction between
cartels and trusts, on the one hand, and non-cartelised industry,
on the other, etc.

The notorious theory of “ultra-imperialism,” invented by
Kautsky, is just as reactionary. Compare his arguments on this
subject in 1915, with Hobson’s arguments in 1902.

Kautsky: “... Cannot the present imperialist policy be supplanted by a new, ultra-imperialist policy, which will
introduce the joint exploitation of the world by internationally
united finance capital in place of the mutual rivalries of
national finance capitals? Such a new phase of capitalism is at
any rate conceivable. Can it be achieved? Sufficient premises are
still lacking to enable us to answer this question.” [7]

Hobson: “Christendom thus laid out in a few great federal
empires, each with a retinue of uncivilised dependencies, seems to
many the most legitimate development of present tendencies, and
one which would offer the best hope of permanent peace on an
assured basis of inter-imperialism.”

Kautsky called ultra-imperialism or super-imperialism what
Hobson, thirteen years earlier, described as interimperialism. Except for coining a new and clever catchword,
replacing one Latin prefix by another, the only progress Kautsky
has made in the sphere of “scientific” thought is that he gave out
as Marxism what Hobson, in effect, described as the cant of
English parsons.

After the Anglo-Boer War it was quite natural for this highly
honourable caste to exert their main efforts to console the British middle class and the workers who had lost many of
their relatives on the battlefields of South Africa and who were
obliged to pay higher taxes in order to guarantee still higher
profits for the British financiers. And what better consolation
could there be than the theory that imperialism is not so bad;
that it stands close to inter- (or ultra-) imperialism, which can
ensure permanent peace? No matter what the good intentions of the
English parsons, or of sentimental Kautsky, may have been, the
only objective, i.e., real, social significance of Kautsky’s
“theory” is this: it is a most reactionary method of consoling the
masses with hopes of permanent peace being possible under
capitalism, by distracting their attention from the sharp
antagonisms and acute problems of the present times, and directing
it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary “ultraimperialism”
of the future. Deception of the masses—that is all there is
in Kautsky’s “Marxist” theory.

Indeed, it is enough to compare well-known and indisputable
facts to become convinced of the utter falsity of the prospects
which Kautsky tries to conjure up before the German workers (and
the workers of all lands). Let us consider India, Indo-China and
China. It is known that these three colonial and semi-colonial
countries, with a population of six to seven hundred million, are
subjected to the exploitation of the finance capital of several
imperialist powers: Great Britain, France, Japan, the U.S.A.,
etc. Let us assume that these imperialist countries form alliances
against one another in order to protect or enlarge their
possessions, their interests and their spheres of influence in
these Asiatic states; these alliances will be “inter-imperialist”,
or “ultra-imperialist” alliances. Let us assume that all the imperialist countries
conclude an alliance for the “peaceful” division of these parts of Asia; this alliance would be
an alliance of “internationally united finance capital.” There are
actual examples of alliances of this kind in the history of the
twentieth century—the attitude of the powers to China, for
instance. We ask, is it “conceivable,” assuming that the
capitalist system remains intact—and this is precisely the
assumption that Kautsky does make—that such alliances would
be more than temporary, that they would eliminate friction,
conflicts and struggle in every possible form?

The question has only to be presented clearly for any other
than a negative answer to be impossible. This is because the only
conceivable basis under capitalism for the division of spheres of
influence, interests, colonies, etc., is a calculation of the
strength of those participating, their general economic,
financial, military strength, etc. And the strength of these
participants in the division does not change to an equal degree,
for the even development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry, or countries is impossible under
capitalism. Half a century ago Germany was a miserable,
insignificant country, if her capitalist strength is compared with
that of the Britain of that time; Japan compared with Russia in
the same way. Is it “conceivable” that in ten or twenty years’
time the relative strength of the imperialist powers will have
remained unchanged? It is out of the question.

Therefore, in the realities of the capitalist system, and not
in the banal philistine fantasies of English parsons, or of the
German “Marxist,” Kautsky, “inter-imperialist” or “ultra-imperialist”
alliances, no matter what form they may assume, whether of one imperialist coalition against another, or of a
general alliance embracing all the imperialist powers, are inevitably nothing more than a “truce” in periods
between wars. Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and
in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other,
producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle
on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and
relations within world economics and world politics. But in order
to pacify the workers and reconcile them with the social-chauvinists
who have deserted to the side of the bourgeoisie, over-wise Kautsky separates one link of a single chain
from another, separates the present peaceful (and ultra-imperialist, nay, ultra-ultra-imperialist) alliance of
all the powers for the “pacification” of China (remember
the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion ) from the non-peaceful conflict of
tomorrow, which will prepare the ground for another “peaceful”
general alliance for the partition, say, of Turkey, on the day
after tomorrow, etc., etc. Instead of showing the living connection between periods of imperialist peace and
periods of imperialist war, Kautsky presents the workers with
a lifeless abstraction in order to reconcile them to their
lifeless leaders.

An American writer, Hill, in his A History of the Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe refers in his
preface to the following periods in the recent history of
diplomacy: (1) the era of revolution; (2) the constitutional
movement; (3) the present era of “commercial imperialism.” [8]

Another writer divides the history of Great Britain’s “world policy” since
1870 into four periods: (1) the first Asiatic period (that of the
struggle against Russia’s advance in Central Asia towards India);
(2) the African period (approximately 1885-1902): that of the
struggle against France for the partition of Africa (the “Fashoda
incident” of 1898 which brought her within a hair’s breadth of war
with France); (3) the second Asiatic period (alliance with Japan
against Russia); and (4) the “European” period, chiefly
anti-German. [9] “The political patrol clashes take place on the financial field,” wrote the banker, Riesser, in 1905,
in showing how French finance capital operating in Italy was
preparing the way for a political alliance of these countries, and
how a conflict was developing between Germany and Great Britain
over Persia, between all the European capitalists over Chinese
loans, etc. Behold, the living reality of peaceful “ultra-imperialist” alliances in their inseverable connection with
ordinary imperialist conflicts!

Kautsky’s obscuring of the deepest contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting imperialism
in bright colours, leaves its traces in this writer’s criticism of
the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is the epoch of
finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the
striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political
system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and
an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national
oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation
of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the
violation of the right of nations to self-determination). Hilferding rightly notes the connection
between imperialism and the intensification of national
oppression. “In the newly opened-up countries,” he writes, “the
capital imported into them intensifies antagonisms and excites
against the intruders the constantly growing resistance of the
peoples who are awakening to national consciousness; this
resistance can easily develop into dangerous measures against
foreign capital. The old social relations become completely
revolutionised, the age-long agrarian isolation of ‘nations
without history’ is destroyed and they are drawn into the
capitalist whirlpool. Capitalism itself gradually provides the
subjugated with the means and resources for their emancipation and
they set out to achieve the goal which once seemed highest to the
European nations: the creation of a united national state as a
means to economic and cultural freedom. This movement for national
independence threatens European capital in its most valuable and
most promising fields of exploitation, and European capital can
maintain its domination only by continually increasing its
military forces.” [10]

To this must be added that it is not only in newly opened-up
countries, but also in the old, that imperialism is leading to
annexation, to increased national oppression, and, consequently,
also to increasing resistance. While objecting to the intensification of political reaction by imperialism, Kautsky
leaves in the shade a question that has become particularly
urgent, viz., the impossibility of unity with the opportunists in
the epoch of imperialism. While objecting to annexations, he
presents his objections in a form that is most acceptable and
least offensive to the opportunists. He addresses himself to a
German audience, yet he obscures the most topical and important
point, for instance, the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by
Germany. In order to appraise this “mental aberration” of
Kautsky’s I shall take the following example. Let us suppose that
a Japanese condemns the annexation of the Philippines by the
Americans. The question is: will many believe that he does so
because he has a horror of annexations as such, and not because he
himself has a desire to annex the Philippines? And shall we not be
constrained to admit that the “fight” the Japanese is waging
against annexations can be regarded as being sincere and
politically honest only if he fights against the annexation of
Korea by Japan, and urges freedom for Korea to secede from
Japan?

Kautsky’s theoretical analysis of imperialism, as well as his
economic and political critique of imperialism, are permeated
through and through with a spirit, absolutely irreconcilable with Marxism, of obscuring and glossing over the
fundamental contradictions of imperialism and with a striving to
preserve at all costs the crumbling unity with opportunism in the
European working-class movement.

---
Notes:
[1]

Weltwirtschaffliches Archiv , Bd. II, S. 193.
— Lenin

[2]

J. Patouillet , L’impérialisme américain, Dijon, 1904,
p. 272.
— Lenin

[3]

Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, T. XIX , Lvr. II,
p. 225.
— Lenin

[4]

Kautsky, Nationalstaat, imperialistischer Staat und Staatenbund, Nürnberg, 1915,
S. 72, 70.
— Lenin

[5]

Finance Capital, p. 567.
— Lenin

[6]

Die Bank, 1909, 2, S. 819 et seq.
— Lenin

[7]

Die Neue Zeit , April 30, 1915, S. 144.
— Lenin

[8]

David Jayne Hill, History of the Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe , Vol. I,
p. X.
— Lenin

[9]

Schilder, op. cit., S. 178.
— Lenin

[10]

Finance Capital ,
p. 487.
— Lenin

[11]


[12]


[13]