We must now try to sum up, put together,
what has been said above on the subject of imperialism.
Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation
of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general.
But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a
definite and very high stage of its development, when certain
of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their
opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from
capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken
shape and revealed themselves all along the line. Economically,
the main thing in this process is the displacement of
capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free
competition is the fundamental characteristic of capitalism,
and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact
opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter
being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating
large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing
large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying
concentration of production and capital to the point where out
of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates
and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or
so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions At the same
time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition,
do not eliminate the latter, but exist over it and alongside
of it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute,
intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the
transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to give the briefest
possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that
imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a
definition would include what is most important, for, on the
one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very
big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the
monopolist combines of industrialists; and, on the other hand,
the division of the world is the transition from a colonial
policy which has extended without hindrance to territories
unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of
monopolistic possession of the territory of the world which
has been completely divided up.
But very brief definitions, although
convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless
inadequate, since very important features of the phenomenon
that has to be defined have to be especially deduced. And so,
without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all
definitions in general, which can never embrace all the
concatenations of a phenomenon in its complete development, we
must give a definition of imperialism that will include the
following five of its basic features: I) the concentration of
production and capital has developed to such a high stage that
it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in
economic life; ,) the merging of bank capital with industrial
capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance
capital," of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital
as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires
exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international
monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among
themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world
among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism
is capitalism in that stage of development in which the
dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established
itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced
importance; in which the division of the world among the
international trusts has begun; in which the division of all
territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers
has been completed.
We shall see later that imperialism can and
must be defined differently if we bear in mind, not only the
basic, purely economic concepts--to which the above definition
is limited--but also the historical place of this stage of
capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the
relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the
working-class movement. The point to be noted just now is that
imperialism, as interpreted above, undoubtedly represents a
special stage in the development of capitalism. To enable the
reader to obtain the most well-grounded idea of imperialism
possible, we deliberately tried to quote as largely as
possible bourgeois economists who are obliged to
admit the particularly incontrovertible facts concerning the
latest stage of capitalist economy. With the same object in
view, we have quoted detailed statistics which enable one to
see to what degree bank capital, etc., has grown, in what
precisely the transformation of quantity into quality, of
developed capitalism into imperialism, was expressed. Needless
to say, of course, all boundaries in nature and in society are
conditional and changeable, that it would be absurd to argue,
for example, about the particular year or decade in which
imperialism "definitely" became established.
In the matter of defining imperialism,
however, we have to enter into controversy, primarily, with K.
Kautsky, the principal Marxian theoretician of the epoch of
the so-called Second International--that is, of the
twenty-five years between 1889 and 1914. The fundamental ideas
expressed in our definition of imperialism were very
resolutely attacked by Kautsky in 1915, and even in November
1914, when he said that imperialism must not be regarded as a
"phase" or stage of economy, but as a policy, a definite
policy "preferred" by finance capital; that imperialism must
not be "identified" with "present-day capitalism"; that if
imperialism is to be understood to mean "all the phenomena of
present-day capitalism"--cartels, protection, the domination
of the financiers, and colonial policy--then the question as
to whether imperialism is necessary to capitalism becomes
reduced to the "flattest tautology," because, in that case, "imperialism
is naturally a vital necessity for capitalism," and so on. The
best way to present Kautsky's idea is to quote his own
definition of imperialism, which is diametrically opposed to
the substance of the ideas which we have set
forth (for the objections coming from the camp of the German
Marxists, who have been advocating similar ideas for many
years already, have been long known to Kautsky as the
objections of a definite trend in Marxism).
Kautsky's definition is as follows:
"Imperialism is a product of highly
developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving
of every industrial capitalist nation to bring under its
control or to annex larger and larger areas of agrarian"
(Kautsky's italics) "territory, irrespective of what
nations inhabit those regions."* [Die Neue Zeit,
1914, 2 (Vol. 32), p. 909, Sept. 11, 1914; cf. 1915, 2, p. 107
et seq.]
This definition is utterly worthless
because it one-sidedly, i.e., arbitrarily, singles out only
the national question (although the latter is extremely
important in itself as well as in its relation to imperialism),
it arbitrarily and inaccurately connects this
question only with industrial capital in the
countries which annex other nations, and in an equally
arbitrary and inaccurate manner pushes into the
forefront the annexation of agrarian regions.
Imperialism is a striving for
annexations--this is what the political part of
Kautsky's definition amounts to. It is correct, but very
incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in general, a
striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment,
however, we are interested in the economic aspect of
the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into
his definition. The inaccuracies in Kautsky's definition are
glaring. The characteristic feature of imperialism is not
industrial lout finance capital. It is not an
accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily
rapid development of finance capital, and the
weakening of industrial capital, that, from the 'eighties
onwards, gave rise to the extreme intensification of
annexationist (colonial) policy. The characteristic feature of
imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only
agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialized
regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for
Lorraine), because I) the fact that the world is already
divided up obliges those contemplating a redivision
to reach out for every kind of territory, and 2) an
essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between
several Great Powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for
the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves
as to weaken the adversary and undermine his hegemony. (Belgium
is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations
against England; England needs Baghdad as a base for
operations against Germany, etc.)
Kautsky refers especially--and
repeatedly--to Englishmen who, he alleges, have given a purely
political meaning to the word "imperialism" in the sense that
he, Kautsky, understands it. We take up the work by the
Englishman Hobson, Imperialism, which appeared in
1902, and there we read:
"The new imperialism differs from the older,
first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing
empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each
motivated by similar lusts of political aggrandizement and
commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or
investing over mercantile interests."* [Hobson,
Imperialism, London, 1902, p. 324.]
We see that Kautsky is absolutely wrong in
referring to Englishmen generally (unless he meant the vulgar
English imperialists, or the avowed apologists for imperialism).
We see that Kautsky, while claiming that he continues to
advocate Marxism, as a matter of fact takes a step backward
compared with the social-liberal Hobson, who more
correctly takes into account two "historically concrete"
(Kautsky's definition is a mockery of historical concreteness
1) features of modern imperialism: I) the competition between
several imperialisms, and 2) the predominance of the
financier over the merchant. If it is chiefly a question of
the annexation of agrarian countries by industrial countries,
then the role of the merchant is put in the forefront.
Kautsky's definition is not only wrong and
un-Marxian. It serves as a basis for a whole system of views
which signify a rupture with Marxian theory and Marxian
practice all along the line. We shall refer to this later. The
argument about words which Kautsky raises as to whether the
latest stage of capitalism should be called "imperialism" or "the
stage of finance capital" is absolutely frivolous. Call it
what you will, it makes no difference. The essence of the
matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism
from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy "preferred"
by finance capital, and opposes to it another bourgeois policy
which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of
finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in
economics are compatible with non-monopolistic, non-violent,
non-annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that
the territorial division of the world, which was completed
precisely during the epoch of finance capital, and which
constitutes the basis of the present peculiar forms of rivalry
between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a
non-imperialist policy. The result is a slurring-over and a
blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest
stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth;
the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.
Kautsky enters into controversy with the
German apologist of imperialism and annexations, Cunow, who
clumsily and cynically argues that imperialism is present-day
capitalism; the development of capitalism is inevitable and
progressive; therefore imperialism is progressive; therefore,
we should grovel before it and glorify it! This is something
like the caricature of the Russian Marxists which the
Narodniks drew in 1894-95. They argued: if the Marxists
believe that capitalism is inevitable in Russia, that it is
progressive, then they ought to open a tavern and begin to
implant capitalism! Kautsky's reply to Cunow is as follows:
imperialism is not present-day capitalism; it is only one of
the forms of the policy of present-day capitalism. This policy
we can and should fight, fight imperialism, annexations, etc.
The reply seems quite plausible, but in
effect it is a more subtle and more disguised (and therefore
more dangerous) advocacy of conciliation with imperialism,
because a "fight" against the policy of the trusts and banks
that does not affect the basis of the economics of the trusts
and banks is nothing more than bourgeois reformism and
pacifism, the benevolent and innocent expression of pious
wishes. Evasion of existing contradictions, forgetting the
most important of them, instead of revealing their full
depth--such is Kautsky's theory, which has nothing in common
with Marxism. Naturally, such a "theory" can only serve the
purpose of advocating unity with the Cunows!
"From the purely economic point of view,"
writes Kautsky, "it is not impossible that capitalism will yet
go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of
the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism,"*
[Die Neue Zeit, 1914, 2 (Vol. 32), p. 921, Sept. 11,
1914. Cf. 1915, p. 107 et seq.] i.e., of a superimperialism,
of a union of the imperialisms of the whole world and not
struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under
capitalism, a phase of "the joint exploitation of the world by
internationally united finance capital."** [Die Neue Zeit,
1915 I, p. 144, April 30. 1915]
We shall have to deal with this "theory of
ultra-imperialism" later on in order to show in detail how
definitely and utterly it breaks with Marxism. At present, in
keeping with the general plan of the present work, we must
examine the exact economic data on this question. "From the
purely economic point of view," is "ultra-imperialism"
possible, or is it ultra-nonsense?
If by purely economic point of view a
"pure" abstraction is meant, then all that can be said reduces
itself to the following proposition: development is proceeding
towards monopolies, hence, towards a single world monopoly,
towards a single world trust. This is indisputable, but it is
also as completely meaningless as is the statement that "development
is proceeding" towards the manufacture of foodstuffs in
laboratories. In this sense the "theory" of ultra-imperialism
is no less absurd than a "theory of ultra-agriculture" would
be.
If, however, we are discussing the "purely
economic" conditions of the epoch of finance capital as a
historically concrete epoch which opened at the beginning of
the twentieth century, then the best reply that one can make
to the lifeless abstractions of "ultra-imperialism" (which
serve exclusively a most reactionary aim: that of diverting
attention from the depth of existing antagonisms) is
to contrast them with the concrete economic realities of
present-day world economy. Kautsky's utterly meaningless talk
about ultra-imperialism encourages, among other things, that
profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill
of the apologists of imperialism, viz., that the rule of
finance capital lessens the unevenness and
contradictions inherent in world economy, whereas in reality
it increases them.
R. Calwer, in his little book, An
Introduction to World Economics,* [R. Calwer,
Einfûhrung in die Weltwirtschaft, Berlin, 1906.] made an
attempt to summarize the main, purely economic, data that
enable one to obtain a concrete picture of the internal
relations of world economy on the border line between the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He divides the world into
five "main economic areas," as follows: 1) Central Europe (the
whole of Europe with the exception of Russia and Great Britain);
2) Great Britain; 3) Russia; 4) Eastern Asia; 5) America, he
includes the colonies in the "areas" of the states to which
they belong and "leaves aside" a few countries not distributed
according to areas, such as Persia, Afghanistan, and Arabia in
Asia, Morocco and Abyssinia in Africa, etc.
Here is a brief summary of the economic
data he quotes on these regions:
