The
Leninist theory of imperialism still inspires such fear in its detractors that
in order to refute it theories of the ultra-right, of social democracy and of
various schools of petit-bourgeois thought feel themselves obliged to falsify it
in their eagerness to present it as obsolete, full of schematicism,
one-sidedness, and other aberrations, always within the framework of an
intoxication with new phenomena which they are unable to understand or to focus
on since their renunciation of the defence of the fundamentals of
Marxism-Leninism and through their desire to remain always loyal to the
imperialist system.
This
is the way in which they put forward the idea of the obsolescence of the
Leninist theory of imperialism and some also oppose the idea of imperialism as
the last stage of history with the argument that "industrial
capitalism" (others talk of industrial capital), has been superseded by a
"globalising" capital which embraces both industrial capitalism and
the new capitalism of information systems, telecommunications, finance, etc.,
making up contradictory theories always choosing the most confused categories
and putting forward entirely subjective schemes of analysis.
Here
we can see one of the many errors of the detractors of the Leninist theory of
imperialism. Driven by their excessive zeal they do not see that the new
phenomena imply a new development of the productive forces, a great expansion of
industry arising on the one hand from branches which hardly existed and on the
other hand from non-productive spheres, for example, finance, commerce and
services.
To
attribute to Leninism, the notion of the predominance either of "industrial
capitalism" or industrial capital in the epoch of imperialism is no more
than a method of presentation among social democratic writers, because
beforehand this idea had been the flag of more reactionary writers.
The
characteristic of imperialism is not the domination of industrial capital, but
of finance capital -(Lenin, Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism,
Foreign Language Editions, Moscow 1947, p.116)-, this in the first place. In the
second place, to approach those phenomena relating to science and technology on
the basis of empiricism, claiming that they stand above the historical epoch
which in fact carries and orients these phenomena always within its own
framework, comes from the most reactionary ideas of voluntarism which expects
from abstract science "human salvation", forgetting whose hands
control the process. In the third place, the ultra-modern phenomena in every
field of social life in the capitalist system go to show that whatever else, it
is finance capital which dominates the world, or to be precise:
"...
Imperialism is capitalism in phase of development in which has taken place the
domination by monopolies and by finance capital, and in which the export of
capital has acquired an order of the first importance, in which what has began
is the redivision of the world by the international trusts and cartels and in
which has ended the redivision of territory itself among the most advanced
capitalist countries." (Lenin, ibid.)
We
see this thesis confirmed by reality. In the forth place, the overcoming of
imperialism can only be the work of the insurgent masses, by means of the
proletarian revolution.
Many
of the arguments used at present in order to "conceptualise" the
"new epoch" and the "new paradigms" are in reality new
versions of the old opinions of that famous social traitor of the beginning of
the century called Karl Kautsky whose ideas can be summed up as follows: That
development goes towards monopoly, and that for this reason, it leads to a
single world monopoly. This is, in essence, a completely subjective notion which
shows no understanding of the laws immanent in the capitalist system which make
its evolution go in quite another direction. But is not this one of the
favourite notions of the present writers and does not it inspire them with many
"fears"?
The
high concentration and centralisation of capital achieved by the end of the
Second World War in the middle of very concrete historical circumstances
underpinned by imperialist domination, must be the starting point to understand
present day phenomena. In modern capitalism the enormous growth of industry and
the concentration of production in ever larger enterprises constitutes one of
the most characteristic particularities of the system which today has reached an
inter-state level as was pointed out by Enver Hoxha in his work Imperialism and
Revolution. The modern aspects of this phenomenon are integral to it; the
monopolies and the financial oligarchy exercise absolute rule on every terrain;
the monopolies dominate all the traditional branches of industry, all the new
branches of industrial progress, all the means of communication, the exercise
control over technological development itself , over the weapons of mass
destruction, they control in general all natural resources, all the world's
financial markets and in general the world's financial resources.
As
in days gone by, these monopolies base themselves on relations of domination and
violence, now strengthened by a dizzying development of its manifestations and
by a powerful technical-scientific revolution. Today these monopolies are
tightly linked together with each other as they are with the financial oligarchy
which is identified as ultra-reactionary and as the principle enemy of the
working class and of the people.
Now
the monopolies are moving towards the establishment of a definite division of
labour between the various financial bosses. (Lenin, ibid., p.52)
It
is reasonable that science and technology have developed in inter-connection
with the development of monopolies during the last decades characterised by the
tendency to the maximisation of profits.
"...
It is evident that having at their disposal thousands of millions, the
enterprises, the big banking companies (and monopolies in general) can also
advance technical progress taking advantage of methods incomparably superior to
the previous ones..." (Lenin, ibid., p.42)
Of
course, the monopolies have advanced, acquiring qualitatively distinct forms and
strengthening their position, swelling an innumerable number of capital
investments, gobbling up the sweat and blood of entire peoples. Today the most
diverse monopolies have labour forces which can be counted in thousands of
employees, as for example is the case with the North American transnational IBM.
This
situation is the same for transnationals and multinationals.
Here
we find a new phenomenon which has made its appearance since the 1970s as a
product of the concentration of capital at an inter-state level. By means of a
series of international agreements and organisations this has been developed as
a phenomenon which has become a requirement of the economic expansion of
capitalism, not from the "democratic" point of view of unlimited
support to every monopoly, but following the line of strengthening certain
monopolies and safeguarding particular alliances. This has been the history of
the Marshall plan, the European Common Market, the IMF, the World Bank, Nato,
the United Europe, the TLC, and the inter-state treaties between various super
powers (and G7), etc.
That
which relates to the formation of new types of monopoly as a consequence of the
concentration and centralisation of capital is defined in accordance with the
Marxist-Leninist analysis made of them by Enver Hoxha at the end of the 1970s.
"Analysing
the forms of international monopolies, in his time Lenin spoke of the cartels
and syndicates (slightly inferior forms, note by E. Hoxha). In the present
conditions, when the concentration of production and capital has reached
enormous proportions, the monopoly bourgeoisie has also found other forms for
the exploitation of working people. These are the multinational
companies.
"In
their otward appearance, these companies seek to give the impression that they
are under the joint ownership of capitalists of many countries. In fact, in
regard to their capital and control, the multinational companies belong mainly
to a single country, although they carry out their activities in many countries.
They are exoanding more and more through the absorption of local companies and
firms, big and small, which cannot cope with the savage competition.
"The
multinational companies open up subsidiaries and extend their enterprises to
those countries where the prospects for maximum profits seem most secure. For
example, the US multinational company 'Ford' has set up 20 big plants in other
countries, in which 100 thousand workers of various nationalities are
employed." (E.Hoxha, Imperialism and Revolution)
The
existence of transnationals serves as an argument to speculate on the
significance of national flags at the end of imperialism, arguing that these
enterprises have freed themselves from their states. This is a profound
falsehood, given the evidence of the imperialist blocs we see today where the
most powerful monopolies group themselves in order to better compete, the ones
against the others.
Beneath
inter-state, world and regional development we have seen arising a great number
of myths and fantasies which speak of how national states have found a new
foundation, when what in fact has happened is that particular imperialist
states, within the framework of this development, have deepened the system of
State Monopoly Capitalism through the conquest and dominion of other weaker
states, and that the imperialist level through an aggressive perspective linking
those with the strongest positions, but also those who hope for those positions.
Today more than ever national states are a heavy instrument for world domination
by the monopolies. As regards the historical category we will discuss the
nation-state elsewhere.
Through
their objectives, through their form and through their essential nature,
"the multinationals are the gears of imperialism and one of the principle
means of expansion. They are pillars of neo-colonialism and violate the national
sovereignty and independence of the countries in which they act. Such companies,
in order to open the way for their domination, do not hesitate to commit any
crime, from the organisation of plots and the undermining of the economy, to the
buying of pure and simple of high functionaries, and political and union
leaders, etc." (E. Hoxha, ibid.)
Up
until now, the transnationals have been behind of every war, behind every
inter-state confrontation, encouraging rivals, provoking the economic ruin of
certain countries in order that they can benefit from the sources of raw
materials, markets, means of communication, cheap labour power, etc.
The
export of capital continues to be a specific characteristic of present day
capitalism.
Under
these conditions the law of maximisation of profits which is universal in the
imperialist phase of capitalism, has served as a strong impulse to the
technological and scientific development.
The
achievements of technological innovation and of the international division of
labour arrived at by imperialism have not been destroyed as phenomena by crises
or by the anarchy of production derived from the private character of ownership
of the means of production. These phenomena include certain distinctive
features, since it is now possible to achieve bigger and better plans for
production (which in fact can be realised), the monopolies can understand better
the capacity of the markets, but driven by competition they may lose some gained
space, let's say concerning the internal planning in each enterprise multiplying
its achievements.
There
are many theories arising from the new technological and scientific
developments, unreal solutions to the problems of the masses, but basing
themselves on the new technology, trying to erase the masses' consciousness, and
through political struggle integrating them into a "more democratic"
technological development within the system.
The
new technological stimulus is related to aspects of robotisation, automation,
information, new forces of energy, new raw materials, new productive processes,
re-construction of the organic composition of capital, better productive
techniques, and re-organisation of the labour force for intensive exploitation.
All this is in the service of the capitalist exploiter.
This
revolution in the productive forces suggests not only a general scientific
advance, but also the proletarianisation of the masses, of scientific and
technical workers in particular, the emergence of new branches of production,
the sacrifice or displacing of superfluous workers as a result of technical
change and involving robots, electronics and automation, in order to increase
the organic composition of capital. Through this we can see the development of a
process with two contradictory implications.
On
the one hand, the working class has been deprived of productive capacities in
areas and aspects of labour in which they used to be irreplaceable until the
height of Fordism. The role of fixed capital alone was emphasised (and logically
we saw manifested the ideological tendency to stress the importance and
dominance of this aspect to the working class, as having the capacity to
"reproduce itself" without the co-operation of the working class).
What has happened is that some of the productive capacities of the working
class, both of hand and of brain, have been robbed from them (but not the
essential capacity of generating surplus value) in order to integrate them
within fixed capital.
This
has led to a drastic transformation of production which cannot be gauged as a
simple reinforcement of the organic composition of capital. Under capitalism
technological development manifests itself in the stripping of productive
capacity from the working class. It does not simply exploit it, rather it robs
it without any compensation of its physical and intellectual capacities and its
potential.
The
second element of the process is that, on the other hand, the productive
capacity of the working class is raised given the machinery, tools, robots, etc.
which are employed in the productive process. Moreover, in those branches which
were before relegated to the field of scientific laboratories, we see the role
of the working class growing in the mass production of technology, going beyond
the isolated laboratories to monopolisation and from there to the development of
monopolies. This production is devoted basically and to a large degree to
stimulating technological development (as is the case, among many others but
most especially in the software monopoly of IBM), in generating innovations and
producing them on mass, in thousands of productive or unproductive consumer
goods; and it requires from the working class specialised, scientific, technical
and operating qualifications, and also to an increasing degree is starting to
involve the less qualified working class. The chip has stopped being a product
for one or a few scientists and has now become a consumer object produced on
mass for the working masses. Thus, the role of the working class has been
increased again.
The
relative gain in surplus value
which can be obtained by increasing the productivity of labour and
revolutionising the means and methods of production is not the only aim of
capitalism. The extraction of extra surplus value has become a matter for ever
more exclusive dealings between the gigantic transnationals as they continue to
introduce technological innovations and methods of production superior to those
of their competitors big and small as a result, lowering the individual value of
their goods below the social value which determines their price, thus obtaining
a level of surplus value higher than normal. A significant example of this is
Japan, which in the face of
American domination and European protectionism
was stimulated to compensate for these disadvantages
by the intensification of labour based on a high concentration of
capitals - and this takes us directly to the incessant development of science
and technology as a particular phenomenon of imperialism.
This
struggle takes place in the shape of monopolies of patents, of markets, and of
state expenditure, but also in inter monopoly agreements concerning
technological or scientific exchanges, and in dividing up the production of
various commodities to compensate for their weak areas in exchange for conceding
certain areas of control or else dividing them up, with the aim of using certain
technologies to penetrate other markets with a high concentration of capital,
and safeguard their own markets, etc. Whatever form the inter monopolist
struggle takes it is always to be seen as a form of support between one or more
monopolies, but this is not a cordial relationship as it is frequently claimed,
rather it is a ferocious struggle not only to get hold of the markets of one's
competitors but also their capital.
By
means of these inter monopolistic treaties and agreements the contradictions in
the struggle for markets are reinforced. Through this it is clear what are the
forces being used to gain markets in Europe, the US, Japan and the entire world,
while as yet there has not appeared a crisis severe enough to force the super
powers to declare war on each other or to seize markets through military means
(however, some of these inter monopoly conflicts have, up until now, been
evident). We have seen the establishment of like-minded governments, the
breaking of economic relations between states and the elimination of competition
from various monopolies by extra-economic means based, above all, on military
forces.
As
far as concerns automation, use of robots, computerisation and their
inter-connection in new and ever more advanced applications in production such
as computer assisted manufacture, design, engineering and programming, and
manufacture integrated by computer, the electronic automation of design,
computer controlled machines, systems of flexible manufacture and technologies
of programmed automation -all these have changed in many ways the division of
labour both in the factory and in society, introducing new standards of
behaviour and storing up various growing and various possibilities.
This
technological model differs from the Taylorist and Fordist schemes of
specialisation of tasks but thanks to them and to the scientific advance of
automatic devices, there is now the possibility of the undertaking of multiple
tasks which previously were given to the worker or which cannot be done by a
worker, in the same way as we have flexibility of labour (refer to the following
work: 'World Strategic and Hegemonic Production', Ana E. Cedeno - Andes Barreda
M.; compiled by 21st Century, editors Mexico D.F. 1995).
The
division of labour in society has new facets of imperialist control. This
includes the fragmentation of the phases of labour, the opening of free zones
dominated by certain super powers, the search for cheap labour when new
businesses can be opened, etc. It also includes strategically worked out control
of both finance and production in a few centres of capital over the rest of the
world, and this is characterised by the consolidation of imperialist blocs
which, to a great degree, subordinate the economies of various other countries
to their own hegemonic interests.
Confusing
the consolidation of international structures between the super powers, the
transnationals and their financial centres with the emerging of a single world
imperialist system in which the life and destiny is ruled by a world capitalist
state, shows us only a version of the old Kautskian theory of ultra-imperialism.
Octavio
Lanni gives us a version of it:
"...
The world system tends to predominate to establish powerful impositions on others, nations and nationalities,
corporations and organisations, actors and elites. It confers on the world
system consistency and validity since it is institutionalised in agencies which
are more or less active, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and many
others. Moreover, the notion of the world system includes the presence and
validity of transnational businesses, corporations and conglomerates."
("Theories of Globalisation", p.44)
In
the same way Heinz Dieterich has developed this notion, dividing up this
supposed World State or supreme power on a planetary scale into government,
parliament and other organisms, without giving any recognition to Kautsky. It is
classic today to debate ideas which have already been buried.
In
this way, one arrives at the classic conclusion that wars under imperialism have
ended and that the bourgeoisie are implanted everywhere, that we are in the
process of transition towards "democratic" forms of the system,
towards a phase of harmonious exploitation of the world by finance capital
united internationally.
The
ultra-imperialist position "exclusively favours the most reactionary
preposition: to distract attention from the deep existing contradictions."
(Lenin)
To
suggest that the world system establishes impositions on "some or
other", including the elites, does not help us to understand the real
meaning of the expansion of capital, the meaning of the development that has
given to the productive forces, and it veils the sharp reality of ferocious
imperialist domination even when they are marginally take into consideration the
disadvantaged situation of the peoples of the world. This doctrine, linked to
the notion of the global village is also based on high technology, telephone
systems, television, fax, etc. which has allowed a new and deep penetration of
"ideologies", from the perspective, however, of capitalism and of
certain imperialist blocs.
These
are some of the pillars of the "confusionism" which has encouraged the
belief in a new stage above imperialism, confusions with regard to the role of
the imperialist state and to monopolist state capitalism, confusions with regard
to the importance, role and transnationalisation of various capitals, belief in
the dominance of the multinationals without hegemonic imperialist centres, and
obscurantism with regard to the role of organisms subject to imperialist
control, (e.g. the UN).
In
a similar way the interpretation which is often made concerning the
interdependence of nations conceals the reality of the subjugation of peoples by
the super powers. This scenario is presented to us under the label of
the European Union, CEI, TLC, MERCOSUR, ASEAN and APEC. Modern
ultra-imperialist theories come from the ultra reactionary right or from social
democracy. They constitute at the highest level of meaning a mechanical and
unilateral vision with respect to the progress of capitalism inasmuch as what
they see as past (the national economy) they are trying to super impose as the
immediate future in the international perspective by talking of the supreme
state. It is true that there exists a world imperialist system but with laws and
features that they avoid discussing and which make impossible the transition to
their "world system", since those laws discovered by V.I. Lenin
put the following historic limitations on the capitalist-imperialist system:
-
Monopoly domination
- Finance capital domination
- The formation of international monopoly groupings to divide up the world
- Unequal development and attacks by the various imperialist countries and
monopoly blocs
- Accentuation of the inter monopoly contradictions
- The development of the national liberation struggle of the peoples in
opposition to imperialism.
With
their "world government", "supreme power" and
"interdependent development of the nations", the theoreticians of
ultra imperialism defend the idea that the domination of finance capital weakens
inequality and the contradictions of the world economy. They do not see the
reality of the ferocious inter monopoly struggle and the sharpening of its
contradictions.
In
the eyes of bourgeois intellectuals, discussion on the national question defines
the defence of nations as an idea in decline, since the defence of
internationalisation is seen as a step beyond cosmopolitanism, when in fact it
is nothing other than a covert defence of imperialism. Leninism clearly
differentiates itself from this way of approaching the national question. Lenin
states:
"The
development of capitalism sees two historic tendencies in the national question.
The first consists of an awakening of national life and national movements, in
struggle against all national oppression, and in the creation of nation states.
The second is the development and multiplication of links among all classes
between nations, the coming down of national barriers, the formation of the
international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, of
science, etc.
"Both
tendencies are universal laws of capitalism. The first predominates at the
beginning of its development, the second distinguishes ripe capitalism, which is
going towards transformation into a socialist society." (Critical Notes on
the National Question, p.13, Foreign Language Editions, Moscow, 1952)
Imperialism
breaks or changes geographical frontiers, political regimes, cultures,
civilisations and the national life of oppressed peoples and of its own people.
But it is not possible to think in a linear way about the destruction under
imperialism of nations except through their oppression and the imposition of
values belonging to imperialist domination, and alongside that in the awakening
of the struggle of the world proletariat which acquires a national form. And
just as we cannot confuse that form of national struggle with being shut off
from the outside world, so the proletariat will be worthy of all those
previously conquered thanks to its effort to establish the socialist system of
production. The road taken by the struggle of the proletariat at the
international level will be a destruction of the imperialist capitalist system,
setting up international mechanism for their emancipation as a class.
Communist
Party of Mexico (ML)