Update note: We have taken for the quotes ON THE
CARTOON OF MARXISM by I. L E N I N,
COLLECTED WORKS, VOLUME 23, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS, MOSCOW and for the quotes on NOTEBOOKS OF IMPERIALISM also by LENIN
COLLECTED WORKS 39, PROGRESS PUBLISHERS, MOSCOW.
APPENDIX II
......
......
APPENDIX II. 2
Brief
Introduction:
Lenin established that: “Imperialism is, among
other things, the export of capital. Capitalist production is being
transplanted with increasing speed to the colonies. It is impossible to
free them from dependence on European financial capital.” “In our days a
system of a handful of “great” imperialist powers (5 or 4) has been formed,
each of which oppresses other nations. This oppression is one of the sources of
the artificial delay in the collapse of capitalism and of the artificial
support for the opportunism and social-chauvinism of the imperialist nations
that dominate the world.”
The LOD cannot explain its alleged “evolution of
semi-coloniality” through political analysis, so, in order to confuse the
issue, they jump from the political to the economic when establishing their characterization
of the country, which, one could say, is a copy of the characterization of the
country made by the revisionist tenseopignists of “Patria Roja” in their “VII
Conference” (1972).
For us, as Lenin establishes and Chairman Mao
develops, the difference is not in economic dependence (economic analysis), but
in political analysis, that is, whether or not they have formal sovereignty,
which requires answering the question of whether the oppressed country in
question is controlled by one or several imperialist states?
2. In his work ON THE CARTOON OF MARXISM, Lenin, in
order to avoid the economic analysis that he had promised on the question of
the self-determination of nations, went over to the political foundation, and
in order to avoid the political foundation of his “evolution of the
semi-colonial situation” of the country to “capitalist Peru”, as we have seen,
he went over to the political foundation to try an economic foundation,
abruptly colliding with Marxist theory and reality. Lenin says in this regard:
“Kievsky does not even attempt anything approximating
an economic analysis! He confuses the economic substance of imperialism with
its political tendencies, as is obvious from the very first phrase of the
very first paragraph of his article. Here is that phrase: “Industrial capital
is the synthesis of pre-capitalist pro-duction and merchant-usurer capital.
Usurer capital becomes the servant of industrial capital. Then capitalism
subjects the various forms of capital and there emerges its highest, unified
type—finance capital. The whole era can therefore be designated as the era
of finance capital, of which imperialism is the corresponding
foreign-policy system.”
Economically, that definition is absolutely worthless:
instead of precise
economic categories we get mere phrases. However, it is impossible to dwell on
that now. The impotant thing is that Kievsky proclaims imperialism
to be a “foreign-policy system”.
First, this
is, essentially, a wrong repetition of Kautsky’s wrong idea
Second, it
is a purely political, and only political, definition of imperialism. By
defining imperialism as a “system of policy” Kievsky wants to avoid the
economic analysis he promised to give when he declared that self-determination
was “just as” unachievable, i.e., economically unachievable under imperialism
as labour money under commodity pro-duction! *
In his controversy with the Lefts, Kautsky declared
that imperialism was
“merely a system of foreign policy” (namely, annexation), and that it would be
wrong to describe as imperialism a definite economic stage, or level, in the
development of capitalism.
Kautsky is
wrong. Of course, it is not proper to argue about words. You cannot prohibit
the use of the “word” imperialism in this sense or any other. But if you want
to conduct a discussion you must define your terms precisely.
Economically, imperialism (or the “era” of
finance capital—it is not a matter of words) is the highest stage in the
development of capitalism, one in which production has assumed such big,
immense proportions that free competition gives way to monopoly. 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 raw material sources, etc., in the concentration of banking capital, etc.
Everything hinges on economic monopoly. etc.; in the concentration of bank
capital, etc. The whole crux of the matter is in economic monopoly.
The political superstructure of this new economy,
of monopoly capitalism
(imperialism is monopoly capitalism), is the change from democracy to
political reaction. Democracy corresponds to free competition. Political
reaction corresponds to monopoly. “Finance capital strives for domination, not
freedom,” Rudolf Hilferding rightly remarks in his Finance Capital.
It is
fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific, to single out “foreign
policy” from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign policy to home
policy. Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards violations
of democracy, towards reaction. In this sense imperialism is indisputably
the “negation” of democracy in general, of all democracy, and not just
of one of its demands, national self-determination.
Being a “negation” of democracy in general,
imperialism is also a
“negation” of democracy in the national question (i.e., national
self-determination): it seeks to violate democracy. The achievement of
democracy is, in the same sense, and to the same degree, harder under
imperialism (compared with pre-monopoly capitalism), as the achievement of a
republic, a militia, popular election of officials, etc. There can be no
talk of democracy being “economically” unachievable.
Kievsky was probably led astray here by the fact
(besides his general
lack of understanding of the requirements of economic analysis) that the
philistine regards annexation (i.e., acquisition of foreign territories against
the will of their people, i.e., violation of self-determination) as equivalent
to the “spread” (expansion) of finance capital to a larger economic territory.
But it is inappropriate to approach theoretical
questions with philistine concepts.
But theoretical problems should not be approached from
philistine conceptions.
Economically, imperialism is monopoly
capitalism. To acquire full monopoly, all competition must be eliminated,
and not only on the home market (of the given state), but also on foreign
markets, in the whole world. Is it economicaly possible, “in the era of
finance capital”, to eliminatecompetition even in a foreign state? Certainly
it is. It is done through a rival’s financial dependence and
acquisition of his sources of raw materials and eventually of all his
enterprises.
The American trusts are the supreme expression of the economics of imperialism or monopoly
capitalism. They do not confine themselves to economic means of eliminating
rivals, but constantly resort to political, even criminal, methods. It would be
the greatest mistake, however, to believe that the trusts cannot establish
their monopoly by purely economic methods. Reality provides ample proof that
this is “achievable”: the trusts undermine their rivals’ credit through the
banks (the owners of the trusts become the owners of the banks: buying up
shares); their supply of materials (the owners of the trusts become the
owners of the railways: buying up shares); for a certain time the trusts sell
below cost, spending millions on this in order to ruin a competitor and then
buy up his enterprises, his sources of raw materials (mines, land, etc.).
There you
have a purely economic analysis of the power of the trusts and their expansion.
There you have the purely economic path to expansion: buying up mills and
factories, sources of raw materials.
Big finance capital of one country can
always buy up copetitors in another, politically independent country and
constantly does so. Economically, this is fully achievable. Economic
“annexation” is fully “ achievable” without political annexation and
is widely practised. In the literature on imperialism you will constantly come
across indica-tions that Argentina, for example, is in reality a
“trade colony” of Britain, or that Portugal is in reality a
“vassal” of Britain, etc. And that is actually so: economic dependence upon
British banks, indebtedness to Britain, British acquisition of their railways,
mines, land, etc., enable Britain to “annex” these countries economically
without violating their political independence.
National self-determination means political
independence. Imperialism seeks to violate such independence
because political annexation often makes economic annexation easier, cheaper
(easier to bribe officials, secure concessions, put through advantageous
legislation, etc.), more convenient, less troublesome—just as
imperialism seeks to replace democracy generally by oligarchy. But to speak of
the economic “unachievability” of self-determination under imperialism is sheer
nonsense.
(…)
To continue. What is the nature of this contradiction
between imperialism and democracy? Is it a logical or illogical
contradiction? Kievsky uses the word “logical” without stopping to think and
therefore does not notice that in this particular case it serves to conceal
(both from the reader’s and author’s eyes and mind) the very question he sets
out to discuss! That question is the relation of economics to politics:
the relation of economic conditions and the economic content of imperialism
to a certain political form. To say that every “contradiction” revealed in
human discussion is a logical contradiction is meaningless tautology. And with
the aid of this tautology Kievsky evades the substance of the question: Is it a
“logical” contradiction between two economic phenomena or propositions (1)? Or
two political phenomena or propositions (2)? Or economic and political
phenomena or propositions (3)?
For that is the heart of the matter,
once we are discussing economic unachievability or achievability under one or
another political form!
(…)
* * *
The reader will already have seen that it requires
roughly ten pages of print to untangle and popularly explain ten lines of
confusion. We cannot examine every one of Kievsky’s arguments in the same
detail. And there is not a single one that is not confused. Nor is there really
any need for this once the main arguments have been examined. The rest will be
dealt with briefly.
APPENDIX II. 3
3. “ NOTEBOOK "x" (''KAPPA") J. A.
HOBSON. IMPERIALISM "Imperialism." A study by J. A. Hobson (London,
1902).
p. 4. Real colonisation consists in people of the
metropolis emigrating to an empty uncolonised country and bringing their
civilisation to it, but the forced subjection of other peoples is already a “
debasement of this genuine nationalism” (“ spurious colonialism” ); it is
already a phenomenon of an imperialist order. A model example of a real
colonymis seen in Canada and the self-governing islands of Australasia.
NB p. p. 6. “ T h e n o v e l t y of the r e c e n t
Imperialism regarded as a policy consists chiefly in its adoptionnby s e v e r
a l nations. The notion of a number of competing empires is essentially
modern.”
p. 9. “(...) !! Imperialism, in which (...) the
wholesome stimulative rivalry of varied national types into the cut-throat
struggle of competing empires.”
NB \\ p. 60. “It is not too much to say that the
modern foreign policy of Great Britain is primarily a struggle for profitable
markets of investment.”
p. 7 8. The
manufacturer and trader are satisfied by trading with other nations; the
investors of capital, however, exert every effort “towards the political
annextion of countries which contain their more speculative investments”.
Capital investment is advantageous for a country,
opening new markets for its trade “and employment for British enterprise”. To
refrain from “imperial expansion” means to hand over the world to other
nations. “Imperialism is thus seen to be, not a choice, but a necessity” (=
the view of the imperialists )....
pp. 82- 84. A m e r i c a’s home market is saturated,
capital no longer finds investment. “It is this sudden demand for foreign
markets for manufactures and for investments which is avowedly responsible for
the adoption of Imperialism as a political policy and practice by the Republican
Party to which the great industrial and financial //N.B.
chiefs belong, and which belongs to them. The adventurous enthusiasm
of President Roosevelt and his manifest destiny’ and ‘mission of civilisation’
party must not deceive us. I t i s Messrs. Rockefeller , Pierpont Morgan,
Hanna, Schwab, and their associates who need Imperialism and who are fastening
it upon the shoulders of the great Republic of the West. They need Imperialism
because they desire to use the public resources of their country to find
profitable employment for the capital which otherwise would be superfluous.
(…)
(( Two
causes weakened the old empires: ( 1) “ economic parasitism”; (2) formation of
armies recruited from subject peoples. )) *
* Ibid., p.
279.—Ed
p. 205. “There is first the habit of economic
parasitism, by which the ruling State has used its provinces, colonies, and
dependencies in order to enrich its ruling class and to bribe its lower classes
into acquiescence .”* NB
pp. 205- 06. “This fatal conjunction of folly and vice
has always contributed to bring about the downfall of Empires in the past. Will
it prove fatal to a federation of European States?
p . 324. “The n e w Imperialism differs from the
older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the
theory and the practice of c o m p e t i n g
e m p i r e s , each motived by similar lusts of political
aggrandisement and commercial gain; sec-ondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile
interests.” *
((N.B.: the difference between the new
imperialism and the old ))
p. 337. p. 337 . “But the economic raison d’être of
Imperialism in the opening up of China is, as we see, quite other than the
maintenance of ordinary commerce: it consists in establishing a vast new market
for Western investors, the profits of which will represent the gains of an
investing class and not the gains of whole peoples. The normal healthy
processes of assimilation of increased world-wealth by nations are inhibited by
the nature of this Imperialism, w h o s e essence consists in developing
markets for investment, not for trade, and in using the superior economies
of cheap foreign produc-tion to supersede the industries of their own nation,
and to maintain the political and economic domination of a class.”
Politics of Finance Capital
// pp. 37 8-7 9. “The recent habit of investing capital in a foreign country
has now grown to such an extent that the well-to-do and politically powerful
classes in Great Britain to day derive a
large and ever-larger proportion of their incomes from capital invested outside
the B r i t i s h E m p i r e. This growing s t a k e of our wealthy finance
classes in countries over which they have capital no political control is a revolutionary force in modern politics; it
means a constantly growing tendency to use their political power as citizens of
this state to interfere with the political condition of those States where they
havean industrial stake.
“p. 389. “p. 389. “The new Imperialism differs in no
vital point from this old example” (the Roman Empire). It is just as much a
parasite . But the laws of nature, which doom parasites to destruction, apply
not only to individuals, but to nations. The complexity of the process and
disguising its substance can delay but not avert final collapse.
“The claim that an i m p e r i a l state forcibly
subjugating other peoples and their lands does so for the purpose of rendering
services to the conquered equal to those which she exacts is notoriously f a l
s e : she neither intends equivalent services nor is capable of rendering them.”
(Lenin, NOTEBOOKS ON IMPERIALISM).
As we have just seen, according to Lenin, as well as
for Chairman Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, semi-colonies are those countries that
are economically dependent but enjoy formal independence, which is a transitory
situation, because imperialism will always prefer colonial domination, which is
why we see that in the dispute of imperialisms for oppressed nations, they,
through a series of mechanisms, try to subject them more and more to their
thick network of domination, for example, as written in our Notes on the World
Crisis No. 37 on USAID. In Peru, from the 1990s until The domination of Yankee
imperialism is greater and the presence of other imperialisms is also growing,
which makes our country an arena of contention between imperialists (see the
inter-imperialist conflict in Latin America in Notes on the world crisis No. 35
On sanctions…).
In our following annex, we will see how imperialist
investment in Peru became much more diversified - at the end of the 60s and the
decade of the 70s -, but the semi-colonial condition of the country not only
remained but deepened, since the economic dependence of the country was
reinforced with new knots. The same thing has happened in the country since the
90s of the last century until today, growth of foreign investment in our
country, etc. Its economic dependence grows, the colonial condition of its
economy deepens and, therefore, its semi-colonial character.
The LOD also seeks to sow confusion about the
analogies and differences between two periods of colonial domination, the one
that corresponds to the previous empires with the current imperialist era.
Lenin. What the LOD does by seeking to revise Gonzalo thought is to make people
believe that they have not renounced Gonzalo thought and capitulated, but that
as the situation has changed they have also changed. In other words, they say
that Peruvian society has evolved from semi-colonial to “dependent capitalist”
“especially” due to “the concurrence of foreign investment from various
powers.” What they intend is to deny the imperialist oppression that weighs on
our country, its character of semi-colony, changing it for a softer form of
“dependent capitalist,” following the theorists at the service of imperialism
of the CEPAL, as denounced by Chairman Gonzalo, as we have cited at the
beginning of these appendices (Line of the Democratic Revolution I Congress of
the PCP, 1988).
The old society is in the midst of its death throes in
its process of , the three mountains have not yet been swept away by the
democratic revolution through the people's war. Bureaucratic capitalism is in a
general crisis and our critical economic situation is getting worse, at the
root of which, no one doubts, is our condition as a semi-feudal and semi-colonial
country, on which bureaucratic capitalism evolves and is being preserved,
despite everything that is said to the contrary. With the greater imperialist
penetration, which the rats themselves consign when they say, "with the
concurrence of foreign investment from various powers," contrary to what
these revisionists affirm, the semi-colonial character of our economy must be
accentuated.
ANNEX II. 4
4. In VOZ POPULAR, which we have previously cited in
these notes, from February-March 1972, regarding the concurrence of foreign
investment from the superpowers, at that time from the USA and the revisionist
Soviet Union and from other powers, it says: