International Relations and Politics According to Lenin - Essay Example

? LENIN’S THEORY Outline A) Introduction. B) Lenin’s capitalist Imperialism. C) Warren’s approach to imperialism. D) Hoogvelt’s approach. E) The scramble for Africa. F) Conclusion. Foreword: The research paper analyzes Lenin’s theory of capitalist imperialism and his opinion of the Scramble for Africa. Thesis: Lenin explained in his theory the “Scramble for Africa’ as an indispensable process of the capital imperialism development. According to The Dictionary of Human Geography, “imperialism is the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination” (Greene, 1970 ). The term of imperialism is usually applied when speaking about such countries as the United Kingdom, the USA, Japan, Italy, Spain and France of the 19th century. In that time these countries were trying to found empires by owning areas in Africa. This process is known as “the Scramble for Africa”. In his work dated 1916 “Imperialism, the Highest stage of Capitalism” Lenin wrote about the importance of building the strong capitalist empire that will treat other nations and will have enough power to take decisions on the world arena. According to him, imperialism implies the domination of the developed countries over the underdeveloped ones (such as African counties). Though it must be mentioned that empire-building and the desire to capture other lands has always been in the history, the Lenin’s imperialism was a specific one because of the capitalist basis. Capitalism is founded on the idea that all the power is possessed by private owners and capital stands for the key element in the economic system. Within the turn of the 19th century the capitalism in such countries as France, Japan, the USA and the UK was characterized by a great number of monopolies. Lenin wrote in his manifest that the small privately owned companies that were the key factor of the nation prosperity according to Karl Marx were to be replaced by the big monopolies that would have fewer owners, and in other words, fewer people controlling it. Such giants of production or other business controlled the whole nation with the help of the power that capital gave to them. The thing is that the dominant elements of the economy “capital, land and wealth were concentrated in the hands of the few” (Greene, 1970). Lenin wrote: "if it was necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism" (Greene, 1970). So, when the economy of one country strives for monopoly, it leads to the decrease of competition. In a while such situation in one state can project to the international arena. In order to secure the power, capital and their ownership those few people needed the support of the state. Any security implies heavy spending on military forces. According to Lenin’s theory, the monopolization of the capital leads to the army strengthening. The rate of a country’s security depended on its army and navy forces, and it in its turn depended on the industrial production that provided these departments. As a result the interests of monopolies and state linked together and there appeared tough interdependence. According to Bukharin, the counterpart of Lenin, the monopolization of economy leads to its internationalization, though this internationalization was to be slowed by the armed nations that protected their ownership and capital violently. Therefore, there was the necessity for a state to cooperate with other countries, but it was to be done carefully in order not to risk the state security. As Lenin explained, "Capitalism's transition to the stage of monopoly capitalism, to finance capital, is connected with the intensification of the struggle for the partitioning of the world" (Warren, 1980). As mentioned above the new wave of imperialism based on capitalism was founded on the scramble for weak counties in order to provide more land and in this way more power. At the end of the 19th century the Africans owed 90% of the black continent. Lenin considered that real imperialism is possible only through the redistribution of the territory. To be precise, he meant that the territory of Africa is to be divided among stronger countries. According to Lenin, capitalism has led to the fact that the territory of Africa was divided among three state-marauders: America, Great Britain and Japan. Those few strong countries implicated the whole world into the war. People all over the world died not for independence but for being owned by another state. Lenin concluded the redistribution of the power in the world after the World War I as well as the scramble for Africa was the consequence of the capitalism development. Lenin’s opponent, the prominent socialist Karl Kautsky claimed that it is not capitalism that brought about war and destruction, but people themselves. According to him, it is possible to prevent any war with the help of the coalitions of capitalists – they just didn’t want to do this or the war was beneficial for them. According to Kautsky, "there is no economic necessity for continuing the arms race after the World War, even from the standpoint of the capitalist class itself, with the possible exception of certain armaments interests" (Frank, 1971). Kautsky also believed that it was impossible for the capitalists to be independent and self-catering. They were in charge of the whole world and in order to maintain peace it was necessary for them to cooperate, make concessions and agreements. The small group of capitalists in power made the wrong choice by letting the war break out. That is why Lenin didn’t want to join the group of the hypocritical states that pretended to be well-wishing and could strike the knife in the back of the friend any time. He wrote that such countries as America, Great Britain and Japan were just robbing the poor countries making them even beggary. Lenin claimed that the world social revolution could put an end to the mess and injustice in the world arena. Otherwise the world would be involved in the constant chain of wars for owning the capital. The imperialistic war eventually turned into the proletariat’s one, with more and more ordinary people wishing to elect their own authorities and refusing to take part in the war in the name of the distant capitalists. He concluded that “the most important task for socialists was to develop the workers' revolutionary consciousness, rally them in the international revolutionary struggle, promote and encourage any revolutionary action, and do everything possible to turn the imperialist war between the peoples into a civil war of the oppressed classes against the oppressors, a war for the expropriation of the class of capitalists, for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, and the realization of socialism” (Frank, 1971). Lenin’s theory that proclaimed colonized people fighting for their freedom opposed many theories that appeared before World War I. Wishing to create giant empires the strong counties eliminated peoples and even countries on their way to the goal. The dominance of the few brought about strikes, wars, and social unrest in the colonies throughout the world. For instance, Irish and Indians revolted against British occupiers. Lenin approved of such unrests for it brought closer the social revolution. However, some theorists of that time tended to think that such outbursts made barriers for the social revolution. Such rebellions demonstrated the string of democracy that threatened the capitalist world greatly. Lenin wrote that it was impossible to have the social revolution started at once and in no time in the whole world. The outbursts in the colonies added to the revolution taking place. There is no way to have the “pure social revolution”, since people all over the world have different aims, different cultures and different ultimate purposes. The exploited were to unite in the whole world and to depose the capitalist power and ideology. Lenin proposed that the oppressed workers in the whole world were to organize movements to claim their freedom and to eliminate the oppression of the capitalists. Lenin’s understanding of imperialism gives a clear and vivid picture of its origin, constituent parts and the result that it can lead to. In his book “Imperialism, Pioneer of Capitalism” Bill Warren starts with presenting Marx’s understanding of capitalism. This form of social organization of imperialism is the most developed compared to the previous ones and its industry produces enough power and goods to form the future communist society. “This approach to capitalism is at total variance to that prevailing in the "left', the usual practice is to bemoan the development of capitalist productive relations and productive forces, and to cherish the things that capitalism is destroying” (Warren, 1980). According to Warren, the anti-colonial wars in the 19th century were not directed only to eliminating the oppressor but to have the right to be the owner of their land, to be able to work for themselves and value the culture of the oppressed country. It must be mentioned that the colonies that were greatly underdeveloped before gained some kind of development with the oppressors. They didn’t want to return to the state they were before the occupation. In China, for example, the war gained the feudalistic shade, since all traditions that receded colonization were neglected. Decolonization was the step forward the modern economy and it was to take place in any case. Warren also wrote that Lenin’s theory expressed in his book “Imperialism, the Highest stage of Capitalism” opposes his prior theory about the capitalist development in Russia. The author studies the terms that Lenin uses in his book. They are: ‘moribund’, ‘stagnant’ and ‘parasitic’. The first term denotes the obsolescence of capitalism since it had been in the world for too long, causing wars, strikes and rebellions. ‘Stagnation’ explains that capitalism keeps the level of production on the same level as it was several decades ago. Economy can no longer maintain the beneficial production without changes being introduced. In order to overcome the stagnation new and innovative methods of economy policy are necessary. ‘Parasitic existence’ he used to describe the capitalists who used the colonies and ordinary people as the feeding organism. The capitalists didn’t work, they didn’t bring any benefit to the society they just owned their capital. Warren had several points on which he opposed Lenin. He states that “(a) capital exports have not increased in significance, (b) Lenin espoused underconsumptionism and (c) that inter-imperialist rivalry was based on trade rather than competing capital” (Warren, 1980). Ankie Hoogvelt in the book “Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development” studies the reasons that made the countries of the Third World to be underdeveloped. According to her, the aid to these countries was reduced greatly since its colonization. The movement of goods across the borders was substituted by the movement of the pure capital that only deepened the discrepancy between the rich countries and the poor ones. The rich countries are represented by Canada, the USA, Japan, the EU, and colonies served as the food storage for them. In the whole world the percentage of the rich is relatively small – for about 15%, and these people accumulate in their hands the most of the nation’s capital. Speaking about underdeveloped countries, it is necessary to point out that there the situation with the rich and the poor is even worse. Nowadays when capitalists do not need the certain area any longer they just take their capital back and shift to another territory, leaving people even poorer than they used to be. The areas in Africa are becoming poorer day after day. Especially it is true about sub-Saharan Africa. According to the author, Muslims live a bit better and Latin America even has its strata of intelligentsia. In Latin America people try to fight capitalism with the help of organizing small labor cooperatives. Though, its performance is mostly in vain. Lenin’s theory that appeared at the beginning of the 20th century was based on Hobson theory and it explained what was happening in the world in that time and what is happening in the 21st century. Currently the theory of Lenin’s imperialism can be easily applied to such organizations as IMF, WTO, World Bank and the situation with the debt of the Third World countries. Imperialistic system brings profit to the rich countries. According to recent researching, Great Britain earned more than 90 billion every year from its colonies. Having a colony that provides with cheep goods and food products is even more profitable than having an active international trade. This situation Lenin called ‘parasitism’. The relative peace in Europe was provided through the constant wars in colonies, which were not taken by European nations as something important. “Peace reigned in Europe, but this was because domination over hundreds of millions of people in the colonies by the European nations was sustained only through constant, incessant, interminable wars, which we Europeans do not regard as wars at all, since all too often they resembled, not wars, but brutal massacres, the wholesale slaughter of unarmed peoples" (Lenin, VI,1963). To sum up everything mentioned above it is necessary to point out that Lenin’s capitalist imperialism was based on the theory of Hobson. It considered capital as the key constituent of any economy. Lenin gave several definitions to imperialism but the most general one is – it is the system, where the capital is distributed among a small number of monopolies in the state. Moreover, those in power - the capitalists - strived for getting new territories in order to get more profit. Lenin explained in his theory the “Scramble for Africa’ as an indispensable process of the capital imperialism development. The stronger nations didn’t help, didn’t invest in the poor nations they just used its resources both natural and human. The only way out of this situation according to Lenin was to set up the social revolution. The capital is to be distributed equally among people of the nation but not among several bourgeois families. In his theory Lenin didn’t refuse the importance of the capital as the key element of the economy, but he emphasized that it was to be in the hands of the proletariat. BIBLIOGRPHY 1. Amin, S., 1974, ‘ Accumulation on a World Scale’, Monthly Review Press, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 56-59. 2. Avineri, S., 1971, Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernisation, New York, Anchor Books 3. Frank, A. G.1971, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in LatinAmerica, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. 4. Greene, F. 1970, The Enemy, Notes on Imperialism and Revolution, London, Jonathon Cape 5. Hoogvelt, A. 2001, Globalization and the postcolonial World:thу new political economy oа development, Basingstke:The Johns Hopkins University Press. 6. Marx, K.1964, Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, London, Lawrence and Wishart. 7. Lenin, VI,1963, 'On the So-Called Market Question' Collected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow. 8. Greene, F. 1970, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking, Foreign Language Press 9. Warren, B. 1980, Imperialism: pioneer of capitalism, London:Verso 10. Warren, B. 1975, ‘Poverty and prosperity’, Times Literary Supplement, 12 December. Read More