Orient Blackswan Private Limited
Registered Office
3-6-752 Himayatnagar, Hyderabad 500 029 (A.P.), INDIA
Other Offices
Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Chennai,
Ernakulam, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata,
Lucknow, Mumbai, New Delhi, Noida, Patna
Orient Blackswan Private Limited 1986
First published 1986
eISBN 978 81 250 5014 8
e-edition:First Published 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests write to the publisher.
PREFACE
Most of the papers in this volume were initially presented at a seminar on Lenin and Contemporary Imperialism organized under the auspices of the Indian School of Social Science at New Delhi on Oc-tobei11981, and were revised for publication some time during 1982. Thus some of the statements and figures contained in the papers refer to a period which does not include the last few years. However, this is not a volume dealing primarily with empirical data. Figures have been used here for buttressing certain theoretical positions, and these positions, right or wrong, remain relevant for discussion. We therefore publish the papers as they are instead of attempting to include up to date empirical data.
The seminar in 1981 was made possible because of a grant from the Indian Council of Social Science Research, for which we wish to thank that organization.
It is impossible to thank individually all the young, enthusiastic student volunteers who had worked tirelessely at various chores to make that seminar a success. We hope an expression of gratitude to them as a collective would suffice for each of them.
Prabhat Patnaik
New Delhi
July 1986
Introduction
Lenin's Imperialism is a difficult work, not only because of its Aesopian language' which Lenin himself remarked upon, but also because, being a pamphlet rather than a treatise, it only selectively elucidates his ideas on imperialism. As Bagchi remarks in his paper in this volume, it has to be read together with a host of his other writings, notably on the national and colonial question, for any overall appreciation of his theory of imperialism. Not surprisingly, Lenin's theory of imperialism is much misunderstood and misinterpreted.
The significance of Lenin's Imperialism lies in the fact that while providing an explanation of the origin and nature of the First World War and the collapse of the Second International under the impact of 'social chauvinism', it simultaneously provided the theoretical basis for a correct definition of the Marxist attitude to the developing struggles of the colonial peoples. When Lenin wrote his pamphlet these struggles were a fact to be reckoned with. As he himself expressed it:
That majority which up till then had been completely outside the orbit of historical progress, because it could not constitute an independent revolutionary force, ceased, as we know, to play such a passive role at the beginning of the twentieth century. We know that 1905 was followed by revolutions in Turkey, Persia, and China, and that a revolutionary movement developed in India.
Marxism had to cope with this awakening in the colonial countries just as much as it had to with the reformism in the ranks of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries. Lenin's theory, by linking the growth of opportunism with monopoly superprofits derived largely from the colonies, provided an explanation for this twin phenomenon. What is more, it provided the basis for treating the national struggles against imperialism as an integral part of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. It thus equipped Marxism to cognize both the paradox as well the promise of the revolutionary movement of this century.
To have discerned from its embryonic form the shape of the world revolutionary movement to come, to have developed Marxism to provide a theroetical apparatus for interpreting it and intervening in it, was a formidable theoretical achievement, the more so when it is recognized that Lenin on his own admission was working with rather limited economic literature at his command. The specific links in his argument were of course influenced by the literature at his command. But the argument as such can withstand and even be enriched by the substitution of, or addition to, its specific links by other links. In any case, in a work like Lenin's which is full of information and illustrations, a demarcation of the central argument from the specific illustrations and links is crucially important. A failure to do so can be fatal for one's understanding.
The commonest misinterpretation of Lenin attributes to him the view that imperialism is the rivalry between different monopoly combines for profitable investment outlets of surplus capital which cannot be absorbed at home. This view in other words elevates capital exports, which Lenin recognized as an important feature of imperialism, into an explanation of imperialism, indeed the sole explanation. Implicitly underlying this view is the belief that for a theory of imperialism to be valid, it must show in some specific way why out of their own internal necessity capital of different nation-states must be driven towards annexing territories, as indeed Rosa Luxemburg's theory had shown. Imperialism must be shown as functionally necessary in some specific manner for the operation of the capital of each nation-state considered in isolation, before we can postulate imperialism as a necessary phase of capitalism. In the case of Lenin's theory, this internal necessity is seen in the form of the need to export capital, and hence the theory is 'validated' by giving exclusive emphasis to capital exports as the explanation for annexations and imperialism.
There is no such requirement for a theory of imperialism, nor is this a correct interpretation of Lenin. Lenin emphasized over and over again that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, that the striving for annexations is the direct consequence of the emergence of monopolies. Competition between rival monopoly combines, each trying to increase its strength and undermine its rivals, directly takes the form of a striving for 'economic territory', as actual or potential sources of raw material, as spheres for profitable deals, capital exports and commodity markets. In Lenin's words, 'to the numerous "old" motives of colonial policy, finance capital has added the struggle for the source of raw materials, for the export of capital, for spheres of influence, i.e. for spheres for profitable deals, concessions, monopoly profits and so on, economic territory in general'.
