The Marxist conception of anti-imperialist struggle and the fact that it is not the same thing with national liberation struggle has been one of the least understood issues, resulting in many distortions. This controversial issue inevitably leads us to underline the importance of having a correct understanding of imperialism and particularly of its difference with colonialism. It has been long since first debates among Marxists over the question of imperialism took place at the beginning of twentieth century. But traces of different tendencies and some misconceptions that emerged in these debates can be felt even today despite the fact that so many events and important transformations took place in the meantime. For instance, a great majority of colonial countries that set the background for the debates on colonialism and national independence gained their national independence and established their own nation-states. However, no ideological and political clarity has been reached within Marxist ranks over these developments which occurred especially after the Second World War. The subject has been distorted in the sense that the kind of “dependence” based on unequal relationships of the imperialist system has been identified almost with the dependence of colonies to colonialist countries.

The natural outcome of that was a conception of the struggle the working class must wage against imperialism, namely anti-imperialism, as something different from the struggle for proletarian revolution. Those who hollow the Marxist content of anti-imperialist struggle reduced it to a kind of “national independence” struggle. Thus, a stage of “national independence” was erected in front of the working class even in those countries which, ceasing to be colonies, have founded their own states and begun developing on the basis of capitalism!

A Third World was invented as if to obscure the fact that imperialist capitalism is a world system consisting of capitalist countries at different levels of development. It was unfortunately not possible to accept this definition as a shortcut way of describing less developed capitalist countries (although it was also used for medium-developed ones!) as the problem was more complicated and the concept was not as innocent as it looked. Because there was a current called “third worldism”, and this current reduced the struggle for socialism to a kind of “independent national development” strategy. Those circles that adopted this version of Stalinism, promoted one section of the bourgeoisie in the so-called third world countries to the position of being anti-imperialist and busied themselves with “building” anti-imperialist fronts on this basis. And this was anti-imperialism in their view! Thus, a challenge from less-developed or medium-level capitalist countries against this or that imperialist country in order to get a better place in the table of harsh imperialist rivalry was considered as “anti-imperialism”. On the other hand, opposition of an oppressed nation’s bourgeoisie against colonialist states motivated by the desire of gaining political independence and a struggle within that scope, was promoted from the level of anti-colonialism to anti-imperialism.

Another false view put forward was as follows: “Imperialism was in fact based on colonial monopoly at the beginning of 20th century. Now that this reality has changed, we must have entered a new era of imperialism”! But expansionism of capitalism of the 20th century was already a new one compared to the preceding period. The concept of imperialism, in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism, did not define the colonialist period, but rather a new epoch characterized with incredible diffusion capability and great dominating economic power of finance capital. And this is not the whole story with the distortions! Independent nation-states which took a long way along capitalist development were declared as “semi-colonies” since they were dependent on major imperialist states. Or, even if the old colonialist era was over, since they were totally dependent on imperialism, less-developed capitalist countries were now “neo-colonies”. And imperialism was now “neo-colonialism”?!

What could be the concern of those circles that are not willing to give up this concept despite the fact that the period of colonialism ended? Why is the imperialist stage of capitalism still explained by such concepts that suggest the previous stage of capitalism despite a long way has been gone on the basis of imperialism? From the view point of Stalinism it is not difficult to find answers to these questions. Stalinist school of falsification is already notorious for its ability of fabricating every kind of stages erected on the road to the proletariat’s rule. But the worst is the lack of a sound attitude on these kinds of disputable subjects in the Trotskyist front which is expected to resist Stalinism with correct ideas. For instance, while colonialist empires were collapsing after the Second World War, the “contributions” of Ernest Mandel and some other Trotskyists alike who were trying to re-assess contemporary features of capitalism did not serve to clarify the issues. On the contrary, they fell behind even Lenin’s analyses in many issues, creating confusion on the fundamental political tasks of the working class in the imperialist epoch. So, they adapted themselves to petit-bourgeois nationalism in the so-called third world countries and national liberation struggles in these countries led by petit-bourgeois nationalist tendencies were presented as anti-imperialist struggles, just as the Stalinists did. Moreover, some of them were presented as the realization of proletarian revolution.

These are the main distortions and misconceptions created around the question of imperialism. Although they seem to be a matter of the past, these questions are still in front of us. Today, as it was in the past, the way of strengthening proletarian struggle for revolution lies in taking a correct Marxist position on every important question and clarifying our standpoint on that basis. We think that Lenin’s Imperialism analysis lays a fundamental starting point for theoretical struggle against confusions and misconceptions mentioned above. However both creators of these distortions and most of the advocates of misconceptions claim that they base themselves on Lenin! Therefore we must first lay bare clearly what we understand from Lenin’s analyses. While discussing on what the imperialist stage of capitalism exactly means, undoubtedly we cannot confine ourselves only to the facts of the past. We must not forget that Marxists in the debate on imperialism at the beginning of 20th century faced the task of foreseeing the tendencies of a new epoch which were not sufficiently mature at the time.

Colonialism was not a new phenomenon for them. Because, already in the period of mercantilist capitalism, commercial capital had coveted cheap raw material supplies of virgin lands of the world for gaining wealth. Powerful and leading states in world commerce were capturing these lands through colonialist wars, declaring these lands as their provinces of metropolitan countries and registering them with a position completely lacking political independence. On the other hand, the concept imperialism did not emerge in western languages at the beginning of 20th century. The roots of that concept went back to even Roman Empire; it was used in the sense of a general expansionism, a tendency of enlarging to a world empire. But, at the beginning of 20th century, question of imperialism which occupied Marxists’ minds and forced them to analyse it, emerged on the basis of new facts. For that reason, the difference between what the old meaning of the word imperialism suggested (tendency of forming an empire) and its new meaning (tendency of forming the empire of finance capital) had to be clarified.

However, at the beginning of this century imperialism was advancing on the basis of actual conditions determined by the facts inherited from the past. At that time, very large colonialist empires which especially arose by the conquests of colonies after 1870s were still on stage. But on the other hand, finance capital, which was a composition of monopolist banking capital and monopolist industrial capital, was gaining strength, and as a consequence of that a new kind of domination and expansionism was emerging. That was the reality of those years. It is unimaginable for Marxists of that period not to consider concrete conditions they were in, so it was inevitable for them to reflect this intermixed situation which was just the reality of that time in their analyses.

Lenin’s revolutionary Marxist theses aiming to understand the world in 20th century came to grips with complicated problems of a new historical epoch containing elements of the former. Although his imperialism analysis was developed to understand the new stage of capitalism, in some of his emphasises and formulations colonialism and imperialism appeared to intertwine. Although this may be regarded by some as faulty or causing confusion, it did not result from an essential misunderstanding of Lenin but from concrete conditions of that time. Under circumstances of an imperialist world war, in a world where colonies (countries which have not yet gained their political independence) and semi-colonies (countries which were in the process of loosing their independence) existed and expansion tendency of colonialist type was still effective, Lenin’s approach was correct.

As time passed, wars of major capitalist states for gaining new colonies or re-sharing the existing ones turned into imperialist wars waged to create new spheres of influence and to re-share them. Maturing of the imperialist stage of capitalism on the basis of its own characteristics laid bare that the essence of imperialist expansionism stands on not colonial monopoly, but establishing hegemony over less developed countries and areas. In the light of concrete facts we must emphasize that wars for national liberation of oppressed nations which have not political independence, so to say, their own nation state, are in fact a settling of accounts with the former colonialist period. As a matter of fact, after lots of colonial countries gained their political independence particularly after the Second World War, it was even clearer that the concept of liberation in imperialist epoch could not be restrained in the framework of a national independence question. In order to avoid a misunderstanding, we must add that national liberation struggles of the oppressed nations and colonies which have not gained their political independence yet still preserve their rightfulness as they were in the past periods. But in today’s world, “national question” is shaped directly on the basis of the characteristics of the imperialist stage of capitalism.

Pressure of powerful imperialist countries exerted on various nations, overthrow of governments in independent countries by military force, pitching of different countries against one another in regional imperialist wars, sharpening of national contradictions by imperialist forces are all burning realities of our epoch. Therefore it cannot be suggested that national question is now outdated or eliminated in the imperialist stage of capitalism. But on the other hand, we must not forget that here what we deal with is the national independence question of the oppressed nations without their own nation state and the wars for national liberation. If we talk about national inequalities at large, oppression, injustice, conflicts, it must be emphasized from the start that national question in that sense can only be resolved by the overthrow of capitalist system.

In imperialist epoch major capitalist forces do not need to colonize weaker nations, deprive them of political independence, of their own nation states in order to be able to subjugate them. Imperialist exploitation and hegemony mechanism fits quite well with the existence of politically independent nations with their own states. Suffice to have a look at the events in the second half of 20th century. For example, national independence obtained in former colonial countries did not disrupt imperialist system of exploitation at all. Likewise, national distinctions were stoked in regional wars incited for imperialist interests and nations once living under the same nation-state were pitched against one another, not to form new colonies in the end, but new nation-states within the spheres of influence of various imperialist states.

The justified endeavour to understand imperialist epoch in the light of all these concrete developments leads us to focus on Lenin’s works in which he tried to lay bare main tendencies of the new imperialist epoch of capitalism. Along this road we came to the basic conclusions that: 1) Imperialism is a world system based on the domination of finance capital. 2) Imperialism is not a new colonialist system, but a type of expansionism based on division and re-division of spheres of influences by international finance capital. From that point of view, it can be seen that Lenin’s analyses in regard to the essence of imperialism at the beginning of 20th century still enlightens us today.

It was the genius of revolutionary Marxist leaders like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to identify and analyse the main tendencies of the future within the facts inherited from the past. However, it is our task to show the ability of not falling behind the point they achieved and adopt an insistent and determined position on that point. We must not forget that many set out with the intention to find out the nature of the imperialist epoch and revolutionary tasks of the working class in that epoch have lost their way in the middle of their journey and ended up being an ordinary third wordlist or sympathiser of national liberation struggles.

In order to take a Marxist attitude on questions like national independence, national self-determination, wars, and more important, anti-imperialism, we must have a correct understanding of imperialism. I believe this is also essential for examining the analyses of the Comintern Congresses on national question and colonies in Lenin’s period. For that reason, I will first deal with basic characteristics of the imperialist system and the changes in the transition period from colonialism to imperialism. And then I will deal with the points mentioned above.

Colonialist expansion and change

The word colony in European languages means place for settling in another country in order to tie it to the metropolitan country. And Colonialism means seizing new lands, colonialist expansion. Under capitalism, colonization was realized particularly in geographical discoveries and conquest of overseas lands in the period of commercial capitalism (mercantilism) between 16th and 18th century. This expansion rose above seizure of rich raw material supplies of colonized countries and settling surplus population of metropolitan countries to these new lands.

Particularly England, which managed to establish a vast colonial empire, secured a handsome accumulation of capital with this advantageous position in the free competition period of capitalism (second half of 18th century and 19th century). She performed a leap forward in industrial production and kept the superiority in world commerce for a long time. English capitalism, with no rivals throughout that period was self-confident about her position on the world market and was preparing to develop international economic relations on a new basis dependent on industrial investment. Therefore, some of the foremost English statesmen of that era began to consider expenses for opening up new colonies as unnecessary. As Lenin pointed out, as early as 1852 Disraeli had said “colonies are mill stones hanged down our necks”.

But by the last quarter of 19th century, England began to lose her superior position. Since other European countries following the English model (particularly Germany and France), developed by building their own protective tariffs and began competing with England. However, the advantages of England’s vast colonial empire enjoyed by English capitalism were at the same time great barriers to others. When other countries began to speed up in order to catch up in this capitalist competition, the world witnessed new colonial conquests in the last quarter of 19th century. Changing conditions means changing policies. As the competition among capitalist countries for obtaining new colonies became harsher, English statesmen sought different strategies that correspond to new conditions. They got away from the overconfident state of mind in which they felt themselves as the only and absolute rulers of the world. Thus they started again to give speeches on the virtue of colonization. In this context, Cecil Rhodes’ well known words in 1895 are remarkable:

… in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.[1]

When colonialist rivalry escalated, cunning English statesmen expressed their wish of “acquiring new lands” “to settle surplus population”, “to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines”. Although Rhodes said “if you want to avoid a civil war, you must become imperialist”, he used the term in the sense of expanding the old style empire of United Kingdom. This ambition was nothing but an expression of the age old colonialism.

Thus, capitalist countries feverishly divided the world by obtaining new colonies, while capitalist development enforced new needs such as capital export, new investments in colonies to enlarge the market, etc. As a matter of fact the tables[2] showing the rise of colonial conquests in the last quarter of 19th century in Lenin’s book Imperialism were very concrete indicators of how world was completely divided up territorially on the basis of colonialism. Lenin said:

For the first time the world is completely divided up, so that in the future only redivision is possible, i.e., territories can only pass from one “owner” to another, instead of passing as ownerless territory to an “owner”.[3]

Colonialist expansion required seizure and colonization of new lands beyond national borders. Colonization was based on open political annexation, i.e. eliminating the oppressed nation’s right of independent political and legal existence. This way, the colonialist country gets hold of economic, political, legal, military, and every kind of executive rights on the colonized country. And that meant an absolute monopoly right of the ruling country on the ruled one. It was impossible for any other country to claim similar rights or obtain economic advantages alike on that territory unless the colony changed its master. It was through political annexation, colonization, to have rights on other countries’ economy or politics. But expansionism of capitalism would not go on in that manner forever. As capitalism developed, by nature, relationships of ruling would also have to change.

Capitalism’s progress towards monopolization caused the geographically smaller “world” dominated by commercial relations among certain regions to leap to a new and higher dimension. Imperialist stage of capitalism meant a new epoch in which industrialization rose to a tremendous level and capitalism turned into a world system literally. Relatively one dimensional commercial relationships of the former period left their place to the complex relations of monopolist powers which performed astounding leaps in capital accumulation. In order to establish new economic relations, finance capital groups from different countries needed to cross beyond borders of not only independent nation states, but also colonies belonging to this or that ruling country and to flow into new markets. Crashing down all barriers in front of it, finance capital began to flow into every area, region and country that seemed profitable. Days were gone now when only one country ruled supreme and thus the state of absolute monopoly peculiar to colonialist period was gradually disintegrating.

In imperialism period it was no more possible for a capitalist country to preserve an absolute monopoly on all investment fields of any region or country because of the high level competition among big monopolies and the complex relationship among finance capital groups. In order to outpace others in competition, capitalist countries gaining power on the basis of imperialist relations were to gain skill in trickery to weaken or eradicate the colonialist advantages of rival countries. For instance, they would go so far as to support national independence struggles in their rivals’ colonies while continuing to claim their rights in their own colonies. In fact, it is no wonder they did that, unless it did constitute a threat for the capitalist system –that is, unless national struggles in colonial countries developed towards a workers’ uprising. They were confident that a country liberated from the colonial statute and formed its nation-state had to knock on their door when it comes to building the economy.

Of course these kinds of transformations cannot occur overnight, which is the dialectics of every transformation. Those colonialist countries standing on the advantages of the colonialist period in search of getting a powerful position on the basis of imperialist expansionism never willingly give up their advantageous position. However, no one can resist the main direction of progress in the long run. And laws of dialectics worked in the transition period from colonialism to imperialism through numerous structural turbulences and national uprisings in colonial countries.

Formation of monopolies and transition period to imperialism

Transformation of the tendency of capitalist expansionism from colonialism to imperialism involves a certain historical process. In the last period of this process a huge quantitative expansion in capitalist colonization is observed because of the reasons mentioned above. Thus, those years of formation of imperialist expansionism appear as if the peak of colonialist expansionism. This was just a transition period. Now let us briefly deal with this period.

At the end of the period called free competition capitalism, a transition era (1870-1900) took place in which competition led to monopolization and thus capitalism moved forward towards the imperialist stage. The need of leading industrialised capitalist countries rivalling each other for cheap raw material supplies was incredibly increasing in this transition period. Therefore the transition period from colonialism to imperialism was accompanied by a colonialist leap in which those capitalist countries expanded their colonial territories and divided the world on that basis.

On the other hand capital exports from developed capitalist countries to colonies and semi-colonies became important. Leading capitalist countries began to construct the necessary substructure (like railways) for reducing transportation costs for the manufactured goods they produced and the raw materials they imported from others, also in a drive to develop the world commerce as much as possible. Those years were not the imperialist period itself, in which dominance of finance capital put its remark on the world, but rather a period of preparation and fermentation for it. Lenin did not agree with those assessments presenting 1870s as the beginning of imperialism: “For Europe, the time when the new capitalism definitely superseded the old can be established with fair precision; it was the beginning of the twentieth century.”[4]

Between 1870 and 1900 when developed capitalist countries expanded their colonies, formations like monopolist associations and cartels were not widespread despite having showed an important progress. Lenin tried to expose the transformation of capitalism to imperialism with its main turning points:

Thus, the principal stages in the history of monopolies are the following: (1) 1860-70, the highest stage, the apex of development of free competition; monopoly is in the barely discernible, embryonic stage. (2) After the crisis of 1873, a lengthy period of development of cartels; but they are still the exception. They are not yet durable. They are still a transitory phenomenon. (3) The boom at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of 1900-03. Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism.[5]

After examining the formation process of the finance capital through the fusion of banking capital with industrial capital, Lenin concluded: “Thus, the twentieth century marks the turning-point from the old capitalism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital.”[6]

However, first years of 20th century were pregnant with storms which would not allow one to concentrate on the economic analysis of this new capitalism which would continuously rise throughout this century. For instance, debates on the attitude of communists against the First World War indispensably became a matter of primary importance. In debates of the revolutionary Marxists the question of colonies gained importance which was put on the agenda by the war of re-division of the world. Because of the concrete conditions of that period, the foresights regarding the end of the war put emphasis on matters like a shift in the possession of existing colonies and complete colonization of the semi-colonies. Between 1876 and 1900, while Germany, Italy and France were gaining new colonies in order to compete against colonialist England in the same line, world became divided up territorially. The result of the competition on this basis could only be re-division of already divided lands, so to say, to covet each others’ colonies and to colonize those countries that had drifted to the position of semi-colonies. This reflects one aspect of the reality of that period, though a striking one.

These were indeed burning questions of that period and also subjects of the theoretical struggle Lenin carried out against the social-chauvinist trend in the Second International. Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism” analysis included the lie that capitalism’s new stage might bring an end to wars and open a new epoch of a “peaceful capitalism”. Furthermore, these views were expressed by Kautsky, a man regarded as the Pope of Marxism once upon a time, just at a time when the First World War broke out, in the middle of bloody wars waged for re-dividing colonies.

Ideological struggle against those who spread dreams about “peaceful capitalism” in the middle of hot wars was crucial. Therefore, there is nothing incomprehensible in Lenin’s overemphasis on the question of “colonial conquests” which were the realities of that period. For similar reasons, answers to the burning political questions of the day and the analysis of main tendencies of the imperialist epoch are mingled in Lenin’s Imperialism. However, while stating fundamental characteristics of imperialist stage capitalism has risen with the beginning of 20th century, Lenin drew attention to the most important points. We can emphasize those as; 1) capitalist monopolist associations, 2) fusion of banking and industrial capital, 3) capital exports to foreign countries, 4) that the world has already been divided up, 5) beginning of the division of spheres of influence of the world among international economic trusts.

Imperialism and importance of capital export

Lenin drew attention to the fact that capital exports were gradually increasing their importance, in order to distinguish imperialist epoch of capitalism from the free competition period: “Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.”[7]

Indeed, the shift in the content of the export from developed capitalist countries to underdeveloped regions and colonies in Lenin’s period was very striking. It was inevitable that this new capitalist stage –which would become evident with the export of capital– would transform the colonialist relations of the former period. It is possible for the capital to squeeze more profits in backward countries compared to the developed capitalist countries. Wages, cost of raw materials and rent are lower in backward countries. But in order to realize capital flow into these countries, a substructure has to be founded which will make industrial investments possible in colonial and semi-colonial countries. It is simply because the goal of capital exporters is not getting rid of their “surplus capital”, but rather finding out the most profitable areas for investment, turning this potential expectation into a reality.

A preliminary preparation period of that kind was experienced as early as the last quarter of 19th century especially in colonies and semi-colonies of Asia. First of all, a transportation network was created to link these colonies and semi colonies to the world market. These countries were covered with railways thanks to the exported capital from developed capitalist counties. That was not all, of course. Economic relations based on industrial export of goods from colonialist countries to their colonies and import of cheap raw materials in return from them, gradually changed and deepened. Since, it is not possible in the imperialist stage for developed industrial countries to be content with one dimensional relationships peculiar to the colonialist period. By 20th century, as exported capital accelerated the capitalist development in backward countries, these former colonial countries gradually became more favourable for integration to capitalist market.

When the huge dimensions of extended capitalist reproduction process is compared with the former periods, it is not hard to see why imperialist forces feel a passionate need to extend the area of modern capitalist production. Long time ago, based on the Indian case which was colonized by English empire Marx said that capitalist development in colonies was indispensable. In the colonialist period, major capitalist countries destroyed patriarchal manufacture industries in these countries and made them dependent on their manufactured goods, whereas in the imperialist period, they had to export some “industrialization” to some extent to the colonial countries. For new areas to join capitalist world market, simple commercial relations of the former period would by no means be sufficient any more.

Imperialist period brought about a kind of capitalist development in the colonies and semi-colonies, which proceeded on the basis of unequal interests and determined by the needs of major capitalist states. Even if they could not catch up with the developed capitalist countries, colonies and semi-colonies of the former period took a long way compared to their level of development in the colonialist period. Regions and countries where capital exports were concentrated did not go back compared to the former period. On the contrary, most of the old colonial countries which finance capital did not see as profitable and therefore did not invest in remained behind others. It is obvious that these explanations do not suit the interests of so-called anti-imperialist “national capitalism (!)” supporters who regard imperialism as insidious policies of developed countries aimed to “retard” backward countries. But this is the reality. Combined and uneven development! Thus, within the accelerating tempo of development in capitalist relations, old colonial countries -especially the ones which have important and rich sources like India- begun to be integrated into capitalist system in time. Most of African countries have gone through this process very lately; especially after the Second World War it became more evident.

Imperialism exposed itself in its full essence particularly after the Second World War in 20th century, though all clues were given in the analysis of Marx in Capital and were subject to the assessments of revolutionaries like Lenin in the following periods. Capital export is an inseparable part of imperialism today as it was in the beginning of 20th century, though of course on a much more gigantic scale. Since, huge capital accumulation, emerging as a result of the tendency of concentration and centralization in developed capitalist countries, reveals itself in a burning “surplus capital”. This “surplus capital” has to pass through national borders and be exported in order to find out a profitable area for investment. Main factor in its emergence is not exhaustion of possibilities of investment on a national scale, nor a saturation of domestic market to all kinds of goods. We know that the ambition of capitalists is not to satisfy the needs of the masses. The sole factor motivating capital is the desire of obtaining a higher profit rate. On this basis, capital tends to flow out to areas or countries which seem more profitable. Therefore the most distinctive feature of imperialism is the movement of a huge amount of capital among developed capitalist countries or from developed to semi or underdeveloped ones –or to some extent the reverse.

Imperialism is the international expansionism of finance capital

Colonialism was the tendency to seize new lands, annex them in order to yoke them completely to the metropolitan country in both political and legal sense. So to say, this concept was used in the sense of appropriation of political rights, politic annexation, and elimination of political independence of the country which is under domination. But the world empire of finance capital, in fact means economic annexation; establishment of hegemony over weaker countries, and, on this basis, creation of spheres of influence under imperialist powers’ control. Land annexation and colonialist expansion continued to survive in the beginning of finance capital epoch which we call imperialism. In the First World War which broke out in this period, powerful capitalist states forced toiling masses to slaughter one another for not only creating spheres of influence in imperialist style, but also for the sake of seizing colonies of their rivals and obtaining new ones. Both sides of this reality take their place in Lenin’s explanations on that period. Besides the tendency of subjugating weak countries through imperialist methods, colonialist annexations did also take place and this aggression of major capitalist powers characterized initial period of 20th century. But as years passed, old colonies gained their political independence one after another because of both the increasing pressure of national liberation wars and the dominant nature of finance capital which is indispensably superior to colonial monopoly on this or that country. Thus, although former glorious colonialist empires on which “the sun never set” disappeared, imperialism neither disappeared nor changed its nature.

Thus, it is not correct to equate imperialism with colonialist expansion and therefore suggest new concepts in order to describe the world after the Second World War when the colonialist empires collapsed. The reality that some try to describe with the concept “neo-colonialism” indeed has nothing new, but it is just the imperialist-capitalist system that financially subordinated underdeveloped and medium-developed capitalist countries to itself.

Lenin made it clear that it was the question of imperialism that had to be primarily dealt with and analysed during the preparatory discussions of the new party programme in October 1917. He drew attention to important points in his draft programme. He criticized Sokolnikov’s draft which defined imperialism as division of world on the basis of land. “The struggle for colonies (for "new lands"), and the struggle for "the possession of territories of weaker countries", all existed before imperialism” says Lenin and continues:

The distinguishing feature of imperialism is something quite different, something which did not exist before the twentieth century—the economic partitioning of the world among international trusts, the partitioning of countries, by agreement, into market areas. This particular point has not been expressed in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft, the power of imperialism is, therefore, represented as much weaker than it really is.[8]

What is essential in the imperialist epoch is the economic power of major capitalist states that enables them to subordinate even politically independent countries. Giant monopolies and financial groups, which are the distinguishing features of that epoch, compete with each other in order to penetrate this or that country’s market’ and share the cake according to their power. Imperialist competition is not for division of the world with respect to land as it was during the colonialist era, but for a division of spheres of influence in which finance capital will easily operate.

Debt mechanism has an important role in the operation of imperialist domination. Therefore, “unlike British colonial imperialism, French imperialism might be termed usury imperialism”[9] said Lenin. Since, the important part of French foreign capital investments was composed of state loans to European countries and especially to Russia. This is not a detail, but a striking fact characterizing imperialist period. And just for that reason, on French experience, Lenin pointed out that capitalism which had begun with small usury ended up in the biggest usury. Germany’s position in comparison with colonialist England was sufficiently exposing the essentials of imperialist epoch: “If Germany’s trade with the British colonies is developing more rapidly than Great Britain’s, it only proves that German imperialism is younger, stronger and better organised than British imperialism, is superior to it”.[10] Lenin drew attention to the fact that Germany’s colonies were less in number, and capital flowing out from Germany to foreign countries was equally balanced between Europe and America. In the imperialist epoch, strength was not to be sought in colonial invasion but in the capacity of finance capital to penetrate other regions.

This reality came out to light by the end of the First World War and began to mark the new era. A young country, the USA, where capitalism developed with lightning speed, was a new power which arose not on the basis of colonialist rivalry but directly on a new basis, that is, expansionism of finance capital on a world scale. While European countries were fighting one another for the colonies, USA embraced these European countries with the power of finance capital, began to rise among others, and thus came to the front as the hegemonic power of the imperialist world.

Although this process was not so clear at the beginning of 20th century, we can see that Lenin noted fundamental facts characterizing the new period. In the final analysis, it is the strength of capital that will determine the division of the world among imperialist states. This fact was emphasized by Lenin through a quotation from a leading news paper of American multimillionaires: “The war in Europe is being waged for world domination. To dominate the world two things are needed: dollars and banks. We have the dollars, we shall make the banks and we shall dominate the world.”[11]

Capitalism, having risen to the stage of imperialism, tries to overcome the contradiction between internationalization of the productive forces and nation-state form by expansionism of finance capital. In Bukharin’s words, “finance capital is the most penetrating form of capital in need of filling every void.” Finance capital continues to exploit the world in a more extensive and intensive way unless the imperialist-capitalist system is overthrown. Thus, even the most remote corners of the world are drawn in to imperialist-capitalist system and economic relations are deepened among imperialist states.

“Dependence” question in the imperialist epoch

The concept of colonial country refers to countries lacking political independence and directly depended on metropolitan country in political-legal terms. Metropolitan country has the complete right of sovereignty and the colonial country is absolutely dependent in politics, economy, diplomacy, military affairs, etc. And the concept semi-colony is only meaningful in comparison with the colonial status. It describes the countries which are in the middle of the road to being colonized, nearly at the point of losing political independence (for example, countries like Turkey, Iran, China at the beginning of 20th century).

But we know that in the imperialist epoch finance capital managed to take even independent countries economically under its yoke. However, in the period when Lenin made his analyses, finance capital could find the biggest “comfort” in the lack of political independence of these countries. Therefore while the First World War was still on, Lenin was right in drawing attention to this matter:

In this respect, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the "middle stage". It is natural that the struggle for these semi-dependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up.[1]

During the first imperialist division war, the struggle for capturing these semi-dependent countries became sharpened as Lenin mentioned. But the same period also witnessed a rise in national liberation struggles and the proletarian October revolution. In short, the course of events was not in complete accordance with the rivalry among imperialists or their plans. Imperialists were compelled to reconsider their plans at a time when Tsarist Russia collapsed, a workers’ government was founded and this government extended its hand to the oppressed nations and national liberation struggles. Imperialist forces were terrified to observe that a struggle begun as a national liberation struggle turned into a social liberation struggle under the inspiration of victorious Soviet proletariat. From then on a change in colonial countries within the confines of gaining political independence would be seen as lesser evil. In the following years decolonization tendency that already existed in the own nature of imperialist development provoked colonial countries to gain their political independence and take their places among other nation states.

It is not an absolute necessity for imperialist powers to colonise weaker countries for them to have a free hand in pursuing their economic, political, military interests across the world. As a matter of fact, Lenin did not consider the need for re-division of the world on the basis of monopolies’ cutthroat competition solely in the sphere of colonization. In Lenin’s analysis, the important aspect was his emphasis on finance capital’s octopus arms having a grip on even politically independent countries:

Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that entire branches of industry have been controlled by syndicates, trusts and associations of capitalist multi-millionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided up among the “lords of capital” either in the form of colonies, or by entangling other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation..[2]

By the end of the First World War, main tendency of imperialist epoch began to expose itself more evidently. Countries politically independent, but economically and diplomatically dependent on imperialist countries were increasing in number. Lenin himself also pointed out this tendency of imperialist epoch. For instance, while he was telling about various forms of dependency, he mentioned financially and diplomatically dependent countries apart from colonial and semi colonial countries:

Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence — the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.[3]

Two concrete examples Lenin dealt with within this context are Argentina and Portugal. Both of these countries were politically independent, but financially dependent on England. In this case, there is no material basis to talk about a colonial status anymore. If they are still likened to a colony, this would be a groundless analogy. Finance capital is already the modern prince able to subjugate even politically independent countries, intervene in their interior affairs, secure its own oligarchic interests through various diplomatic and military impositions. The Portugal example Lenin gave in his book Imperialism, indicates that he did not only consider colonial type of dependence, but more importantly the imperialist type of dependence which would mark the 20th century:

Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc., etc. Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, they form part of the sum total of "divide the world" relations and become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital.[4]

The tendency to colonize can in no way be a general rule in the imperialist epoch. Sometimes it can be more profitable for imperialists to recognise political independence of small nations. As a matter of fact Lenin drew attention to this fact. Intelligent leaders of imperialism think that it is a “more reliable and profitable choice to create politically independent states” for subjugating small nations. But the same leaders also emphasize plainly that: “‘We’ will of course do our best for their financial dependence!”[5] Besides the fact that the distinction between these two became much more easily comprehensible in the following years, Lenin was farsighted enough to try to explain this difference between colonialism and imperialism. He says “economic ‘annexation’ is fully ‘achievable’ without political annexation and is widely practised.” He explains the mechanism it is based on:

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.)..[6]

Afterwards Lenin says, “There you have a purely economic analysis of the power of the trusts and their expansion.” These statements are also an answer to those who try to describe imperialism with false concepts like “neo-colonialism”. Those who define a system in which imperialist powers dictate their political terms and military plans to weak countries thanks to their economic power as “a kind of colonialism” blur the question to say the least, if they are not ill-intentioned. To address the question on the basis of “colonialism” is still to regard the dependency of weak nation states on powerful ones as a question of “national independence”. Yet, most of the former colonial countries have gained their political independence, which laid bare the fact that the essential dependence is the economic one. And this is just what world capitalist system is; there can be no isolated capitalist country without economic dependence on the system.

Therefore, there is no scientific ground in equating this economic dependency of imperialist epoch and political dependency of the colonialist period. Gaining political independence is not in conflict with the operation of capitalist system. On the contrary, powerful capitalist countries make all these politically independent countries dependent on themselves through every kind of economic mechanisms. This dependence, however, is an inter-dependence on unequal terms which is inherent in the operation of capitalist system as a whole. Under capitalism it is impossible to escape from this dependence. And what is more important, it is utterly false to assert that less or medium developed capitalist countries must struggle for national liberation as the colonies and the semi-colonies did once upon a time by asserting economic dependence as an excuse.

Imperialism rises above monopolist competition

Hilferding defined finance capital as “banking capital turned into industrial capital”. Lenin found this definition somewhat incomplete, and he mainly drew attention to the monopolies and their formation:

This definition is incomplete insofar as it is silent on one extremely important fact — on the increase of concentration of production and of capital to such an extent that concentration is leading, and has led, to monopoly. But throughout the whole of his work, and particularly in the two chapters preceding the one from which this definition is taken, Hilferding stresses the part played by capitalist monopolies. The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry — such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of that concept.[18]

One of the most striking characteristics of capitalism, as it was proceeding towards the imperialist stage, was the concentration of industrial capital in bigger companies with a high speed. Similarly, banking capital was also being concentrated in a small number of large-scale financial institutions. Thus, banks became huge monopolies controlling an important part of a certain country’s or many countries’ raw material sources and productive forces besides the money-capital of other capitalists and small businessmen. In this process, banking capital and industrial capital fused into a growing unity. Banks turned into international associations governing finance capital. As a principal characteristic of imperialist stage of capitalism, monopolies gained a decisive importance.

As Marx pointed out a long time ago, quantitative concentration of monopolies in industrial and banking sectors caused a qualitative transformation and gave birth to a new combination of capital, i.e. finance capital. In mercantilist and free competitive periods of capitalism, revealing itself as commercial and industrial capital respectively, capital created monopolist finance capital as a consequence of competition. It is competition that creates monopolies. But existence of monopolies in no way eliminates competition. So, it is not right to deal scholastically with monopolies and competition as if they exclude each other. Within the dialectics of capitalist development, monopoly and competition form a unity in which these two contradict each other but also exist together. Competition creates monopoly; but the effort of overcoming competition through monopolization does not eliminate it. On the contrary, this carries it to a higher level, so to say, creates competition among monopolies.

If we think it through for a moment, the final point that kind of movement tends to reach in its own dialectics would be a situation of an “absolute monopoly” that excludes competition. But this means a negation of relations of capitalist production based on private property. As a matter of fact, Marxist analysis of imperialist epoch indicates this course the highest stage of capitalism heads to. Centralization and concentration of capital, that is, the quantitative development of monopolization, increasingly enforces a qualitative transformation. Capitalist production process, originally organized on the basis of private property of capitalists on the means of production, turned into a process that is organized on a world scale by huge international capital groups as a result of the growth and monopolization of joint stock companies. The dimensions of monopolization and growth of socialization of production become enormous as the epoch of imperialism proceeds, which means that capitalism rapidly moves towards a point where it negates its very essence. Undoubtedly, this Marxist analysis points to the main tendency of monopolist development of capitalism, its course and the need of replacing it with communism. But capitalism will not leave its place to communism by a natural evolution. For this qualitative transformation to take place, world capitalist system must be overthrown by proletarian revolutions.

Monopolist progress of capitalism at the same time causes organization of production to acquire a global character that cannot be confined to national borders any more. Lenin makes this point: “Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism now finds the old nation states, without whose formation it could not have overthrown feudalism, are too cramped for it.”[19]

But we must emphasize one important point here. It was Marx himself who pointed out that capitalist mode of production has the inner characteristic of uneven and combined development; that concentration and centralization of capital in certain hands indispensably leads to monopolization; that this course of capitalism can in no way reconcile with narrow borders of nation-state form; that capitalism would find various ways out unless it is not overthrown. But is not that imperialism?

For us, of course it is. Nevertheless, according to the Stalinist school of falsification which reduces Marx’s profound analyses on capitalist mode of production to a “theory of the period of free competition capitalism” with a sleight of hand, Marx knew nothing about this course of capitalism! It was Lenin who analyzed these facts, discovered the law of uneven and combined development, and consequently established the theory of imperialism! These hollow assertions of Stalinism clouded the facts muddling the consciousness of so many people for many years in the name of a so-called Marxism. But Lenin, who took it as a virtue to try to be a good disciple of Marx, wrote in his book Imperialism:

Half a century ago, when Marx was writing Capital, free competition appeared to the overwhelming majority of economists to be a "natural law". Official science tried, by a conspiracy of silence, to kill the works of Marx, who by a theoretical and historical analysis of capitalism had proved that free competition gives rise to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development, leads to monopoly. Today, monopoly has become a fact. Economists are writing mountains of books in which they describe the diverse manifestations of monopoly, and continue to declare in chorus that "Marxism is refuted". But facts are stubborn things, as the English proverb says, and they have to be reckoned with, whether we like it or not.[20]

The concept of world economy occupies a very important place in all analyses of the founders of Marxism, starting from the early but basic works like the German Ideology or the Communist Manifesto. World economy increasingly reveals itself in the imperialist stage of capitalism. Therefore, it has been a necessity to conceive all of the elements of capitalist mode of production (forces of production, relations of production, division of labour, production and division of surplus value, markets, formation of prices) not on a national scale anymore, but on an international scale. All of the concepts such as globalization, which is quite popular nowadays, indeed describe the latest phase of capitalism that has been reached in 20th century and we still live in, that is to say, the age of finance capital rule, which we simply call imperialism.

For instance, monopolistic mergers that appear as an inevitable outcome of sharpening of competition at an increasingly higher level by the monopolist drive cannot only occur within national borders. International formation of capital is a very contradictory process pregnant with various crises. On the one hand capital cannot completely avoid the need to lean on a nation state because of both historical roots of its formation and its search for a safe shelter. But on the other hand, existence of capital groups from different countries which undertake huge investments in company is a concrete fact. Besides, it is a necessity for capital groups which face trouble during periods of big crises to seek for some more powerful “foreign” partners, vindicating the principle that capital has no fatherland. Monopoly capitalism means monopolist marriages. And in these kinds of marriages, the important matter is not the nationality of the “bride” or “groom”, but rather economic interests.

Let us assume that a more powerful American monopoly merges with a relatively weakened English monopoly in the energy sector. Even if there is an inequality in this marriage, they undersign the birth of a multi-national monopoly at a higher level. The fact that every capital group resting on a nation state in regard to their origin calls its nation state for help when they get into trouble is just a revelation of the contradictory character of capitalism in its imperialist stage. Both mergers and fights! Both the need for shelter under nation states’ wings, and mergers disregarding nationality with the efforts of overcoming restricted borders of the nation state! So, in spite of the tendency of capital to integrate, there is no abstract international capital free of national divides, flying over the clouds as if completely broken off from the states in the world. But in a contradictory process as we pointed out and as a result of multidimensional economic relations, powerful finance capital groups gain more of an international character than standing on a single nation-state.

Imperialism is the domination of finance capital

In the preface he wrote in 1920 for his book Imperialism, Lenin explained that capitalism turned into a world system in which a handful of “advanced countries” were financially strangling and oppressing a great majority of world population. Imperialism is indeed a system in which powerful capitalist countries dictate various economic terms to weaker countries and oppress them by different means. Tendency of capitalism to grow into a world economy realised itself particularly in the era of the rule of finance capital that gained an international character.

Imperialism is the empire of finance capital. Finance capital is superior to all other forms of capital and therefore a handful of major capitalist states which are powerful in finance capital are in a superior position to all other capitalist countries. In the imperialist period superiority reveals itself in the dominant and monopolist position of powerful finance capital groups in markets. However, in the foreword he wrote to Buharin’s work Imperialism and World Economy, dated 1915, Lenin defines the new ruler of 20th century as follows:

Finance capital took over as the typical “lord” of the world; it is particularly mobile and flexible, particularly interknit at home and internationally, and particularly impersonal and divorced from the production proper; it lends itself to concentration with particular ease, and has been concentrated to an unusual degree already, so that literally a few hundred multimillionaires and millionaires control the destiny of the world.[21]

Being peculiarly mobile and flexible, this contemporary emperor carried on operating as peculiarly intertwined at home and internationally even after colonies and semi-colonies once under its rule gained their political independence. Different from the former modest industrial capitalists, major banking-industrial monopolies, controlling unbelievable amounts of finance capital assets did not need to focus their interest on particular factories or enterprises in the production process. In the final analysis, it is obvious that finance capital can only expand itself by investing on the production process and extracting surplus value in this process. But finance capitalists, controlling finance capital funds, laid the path for channelling huge amounts of profits to their coffers without taking place, even as supervisors, in production process any more. “Divorced from the immediate processes of production,” as Lenin said, emperors of finance capital focused on ways and methods of developing their global domination by transferring the work of organizing and supervision to well-paid professional managers.

To sum up; imperialism is the system of capitalist exploitation which is crowned by the domination of finance capital and is essentially embodied in the international expansionism of finance capital. The quality of imperialism has not been changed by the national liberation struggles that resulted in achievement of national independence in former colonial countries during the course of imperialist stage of capitalism. On the contrary, it indicates strikingly that what is crucial is the drive for economic hegemony in imperialist epoch. At present capitalism is a world system that is realized in a single world market embracing all capitalist countries no matter big or small, including also the countries which entered the road to capitalism with the collapse of Stalinist bureaucratic regimes. It develops in an uneven but combined manner on the basis of international division of labour and reproduces the interdependence on unequal terms.

Inseparable part of imperialist epoch: Wars for hegemony

Because of capital’s need for overcoming national barriers in the imperialist epoch, monopolist competition has an international dimension. Major capitalist states compete with each other to establish their domination over sales markets, raw material markets and capital investment areas. Even if this competition is possible to carry on in a relatively peaceful manner in periods of boom, it becomes impossible in periods of big and deep crises. In such periods, struggle among imperialist states for hegemony over spheres of influence may turn into open wars for division. Imperialist wars are nothing more than continuation by military means of the policy of rivalry among imperialists. Therefore, it is false to immerse oneself in the forms of this competition among capitalist groups which may be peaceful one day and the opposite on the other, rather than trying to analyse the content of it.

Even if imperialist states and different capital groups are in intricate relations internationally, it is a unity in rivalry. Thus, in some periods when the rivalry becomes heated, a tendency towards arming and wars emerges in the imperialist countries. If important changes occur in existing economic balance of power and the hegemony crisis deepens, imperialist powers may have to carry on their world policy through arms in order to settle their accounts.  

The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits. And they divide it "in proportion to capital", "in proportion to strength", because there cannot be any other method of division under commodity production and capitalism.[22]

While laying bare the tendencies characterizing the imperialist epoch, Lenin was insistently struggling against the claims that capitalism would gradually arrive at a “peaceful” operation. For instance, acting in an attempt to be a mentor for imperialists, Kautsky (ancestor of the present day renegades) says, “The urge of capital to expand ... can be best promoted, not by the violent methods of imperialism, but by peaceful democracy”.[23] Nevertheless, imperialist wars, militarism, violent methods accompanying the re-division of the world, all these are indispensable parts of the imperialist epoch. For that reason, those like Kautsky who consider imperialism as one of the policies –only a policy of oppression and violence- of finance capital and not an inherent necessity, must be politically condemned.

Kautsky concluded that a “peaceful capitalism was possible” due to the trend of increasing international mingling among finance capital cliques. He arrived at this conclusion from his “ultra-imperialism” analysis which suggested that monopolist associations would create a single world trust preventing competition and crises. But Lenin tried to expose that competition and crises are re-created at higher levels through formation of capitalist monopolist associations. It was a dangerous dream in bare conflict with the realities to think that imperialism would be a “peaceful” epoch of expansion. Lenin defined imperialism not as a form of “policy”, but as just the modern capitalism itself. He underlined that oppression and violence were inseparable parts of imperialist capitalism.

On the other hand Kautsky regarded imperialism as the tendency of industrialized countries to annex ever wider agricultural areas. However, imperialism did not consist only of this even if imperialist wars led to land annexations in backward countries. Right at this point Lenin drew attention to a very important fact. He reminded that in a conjuncture when competition among imperialist countries becomes harsh and grows into an imperialist war, these countries would also attack industrialized capitalist countries with an eye to weakening the rivals and establishing their own hegemony. Germany’s attack to Belgium for braking England’s domination was an example for that. By that way, Belgium did not become a colony of Germany, but the arena of imperialist war was widened. In order to protect its nation state, Belgium bourgeoisie determined its side with respect to the concrete conditions between imperialist sides.

As proved by various regional wars reflecting the fight for hegemony among imperialist powers, a “peaceful capitalism” is still a dangerous dream today. This “dream” is a sophistry asserted by “modern” renegades in the example of Kautsky for undermining the revolutionary struggle of the working class. The US case –as the hegemonic power that marked the imperialist epoch -is a clear example of aggressive expansionism of finance capital. Years under hegemony of US imperialism very clearly reveal the ways of maintaining this hegemony and making various independent states accept it. Imperialism means oppression on various nations, interfering with their internal affairs, political intrigues, political gangsterism, and, most importantly, imperialist wars. And imperialism has proved that it can well maintain its damned job without colonizing other countries. If profitable, it is obvious that imperialist countries instigate national distinctions, create new national questions by pitching nations against one another. Besides, in regional wars provoked by imperialist powers, territories of the countries on the target can be occupied and therefore national question may also gain and regain importance. But when all these examples carefully examined, different from the colonialist era the result is not creation of new colonies, but establishment of new bourgeois governments or new nation states adhering to the dominating imperialist state.

Anti-imperialist struggle cannot be reduced to national liberation struggle

Kautsky and the like who consider imperialism not as modern capitalism, but merely as one of the policies of it do not oppose imperialism as a system. For example Kautsky advocates a policy of opposing its annexation policy only, not imperialist economic process as a whole. This is a completely reformist and pacifist way of thinking and lays the ground for a false “anti-imperialism” understanding. And Lenin’ criticism of Kautsky exposes such approaches:

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 economic basis of the trusts and banks is mere bourgeois reformism and pacifism, the benevolent and innocent expression of pious wishes.[24]

We find it necessary to highlight some important points here. A political line confining the struggle against imperialism to the recognition of national self-determination cannot go beyond bourgeois reformism. Reducing the struggle against imperialism to opposition against annexations and thus not taking sides against economic foundations of imperialism is not anti-imperialist. A struggle which starts against annexations or national oppression can gain an anti-imperialist character only when it turns into a struggle against economic foundations of imperialist system. But this change of dimension of the struggle is neither the bourgeoisie’s nor petit-bourgeoisie’s problem. It is only but only revolutionary proletariat’s problem to turn any struggle against national oppression into an anti-imperialist revolt.

As in the case of Belgium, the bourgeoisie, who oppose annexation of its land by another state and protect its right of national sovereignty, in effect pursues its own class interests. But this is not anti-imperialism. It is only an attitude within the framework of capitalism against aggressor imperialist state. Therefore, while opposing, for instance, German imperialism, the bourgeoisie of Belgium tries to develop its good relations with British imperialism on the basis of their common interests. Class interests of the bourgeoisie never bring a breakaway from the capitalist system, but need the rights of sovereignty to be recognized by the powerful ones. So, it is downright class collaboration to reduce opposition of revolutionary proletariat to imperialism to opposition to policies of this or that imperialist state or to the level of supporting the rights of sovereignty of “its own” bourgeoisie.

Many colonial countries successfully concluded their national liberation struggles in 20th century, achieved their national (political) independence and established their own nation-states. But as time passed, it turned out that these countries became inevitably dependent on imperialist system when they continued to stay in the capitalist system and be a component of it. Thus, imperialism proved to be a system capable of maintaining its domination on countries which gained their political independence. Therefore, it was wrong from the standpoint of Marxism to consider the imperialist stage of capitalism in the framework of colonialism, and, describe it, for instance, as “neo-colonialism” etc.

Nevertheless, in real life, in actual needs of politics, concepts may experience a sort of deformation or, more correctly, be distorted. For instance, it was a widespread trend to describe imperialist system as “neo-colonialism” in 1960s when national liberation struggles in colonial countries were on the rise. And this description was considered very important by those forces that were waging struggle for political independence. This is understandable: these national liberationists were waging a struggle against colonialism which was a thing of the former period surviving in the imperialist epoch. But because of this anachronism, even when they speak of “neo-colonialism”, they were targeting the actual realities of the new period, that is, imperialism.

For example, according to Nkrumah, the leader of Gana’s national liberation, neo-colonialism is “the method of giving independence to Africa with one hand and take it with the other. ... a fake independence in which the neo-colonialist state grants a sort of sovereignty to the former colony to control it through extra-political means by making it a client-state.”[25] What Nkrumah said in his attempt to define “neo-colonialism” was nothing but the fundamental characteristics of imperialist epoch. What he did by these words was actually to reveal the mere anti-colonialist character of the struggles that are confined to the aim of gaining political independence, i.e. national liberation struggles, which could not change the imperialist system and inflict a real blow to imperialism. It is true that unless there is a definite breakaway from imperialist system which is a world system one cannot be independent from imperialism, which has been proven by various experiences. Therefore, the question of independence from imperialism cannot be reduced to the question of national independence; anti-imperialism is a question of social liberation.

Imperialist counties dictate not only economic terms on weaker capitalist countries. But this situation is a general law of capitalist order. Under capitalism, he who pays the piper calls the tune! No matter how much the bourgeoisies of various capitalist states who borrowed enormous amounts from major imperialist states complain about unequal relations or interference with their “internal affairs,” this is their capitalist system as a whole. Why should the working class be concerned with these complaints? Sharing the grievance of the weaker bourgeoisie or preaching a “fully independent and national order” within capitalism to the working class suits only the petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, burning problem of the proletariat in all capitalist countries, no matter big or small, is not economic “independence(!)” of its “own” bourgeoisie, but emancipation from the capitalist order of exploitation. In short, the goal of the working class struggle against imperialism is to put an end to the bourgeois order, to seize political power, i.e. the proletarian revolution.

One can find the most important issues regarding the debates on anti-imperialism dealt with in Lenin’s book Imperialism. Anti-imperialism cannot be expected from any section of the bourgeoisie! Lenin exposes the economic reality underlying this conclusion:

The enormous dimensions of finance capital concentrated in a few hands and creating an extraordinarily dense and widespread network of relationships and connections which subordinates not only the small and medium, but also the very small capitalists and small masters, on the one hand, and the increasingly intense struggle waged against other national state groups of financiers for the division of the world and domination over other countries, on the other hand, cause the propertied classes to go over entirely to the side of imperialism.[26]

As a matter of fact, a consistent anti-imperialism cannot be expected from the petty-bourgeoisie as well! What the petty-bourgeois democrats understand from anti-imperialist struggle is also superficial; because they overlook unbreakable ties between imperialist politics and fundamentals of the capitalist economic process. By suggesting “national capitalism” against imperialism, they spread out dreams of possibility of capitalism independent from imperialism. They are incapable of conceiving imperialism as a world system comprising indispensably all capitalist countries, or they are not willing to do so. Leaving nuances aside, the very essence of “anti-imperialism” understanding prevailing in all petit-bourgeois currents is a so-called opposition to imperialism which is not directed to capitalist process in side country, and therefore lacking an anti-capitalist content, and reduced only to foreign factor! For petit-bourgeoisie, anti-imperialism is to take attitude “against the policies” of colonialism and annexation.

Nevertheless, despite all their inconsistencies petty-bourgeois currents of opposition occupy quite a wide space, which is a reality of capitalism. As financial oligarchy creates reaction in every field and an increasing national oppression, this situation brings out an opposition on the part of the petty-bourgeois democrats in various kinds of capitalist countries. Lenin gave a concrete example on this subject. He refers to the political attitude of petty-bourgeois democrats in the United States during the expansionist war the USA waged against Spain in 1898. Instead of opposing the economic essence of the war, petty-bourgeois reformists contented themselves with describing it as unlawful (because of annexation) with reference to the constitution and condemned it as a criminal war. Polishing a so-called anti-imperialist attitude with high-sounding radicalism –using adjectives like criminal- is just in accordance with petty-bourgeois temperament and deserves mockery today, as it was yesterday. And Lenin did so; “In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the ‘anti-imperialists’, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy”.[27]

Lenin ends his Preface dated July 1920 to his book Imperialism with the following words: “Imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat. This has been confirmed since 1917 on a world-wide scale..” As he emphatically explained, imperialist epoch is the epoch of proletarian revolutions. Because, this highest stage of capitalism means nothing more than maturation of conditions of proletarian revolution and formation of the material basis for socialism. While rising to the level of a world system, capitalism indeed heads for its end:

Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation.[28]

As the capitalist order of exploitation is embodied in the imperialist system at present age, the proletarian revolution in all capitalist countries will be an anti-imperialist revolution. What road to take in various countries in order to achieve this goal is secondary in comparison with the general character of the proletarian revolution. This is but the essence of the conception of permanent revolution advocated by Trotsky who carried the banner of revolutionary Marxism against the conception of revolution in stages which was turned into a dogma by Stalinism. In comparison with the developed capitalist countries, proletarian revolution has to overcome some extra problems which have not been solved yet in the medium or less developed capitalist countries. Revolutionary programme of the working class will include democratic tasks which this revolution will solve in passing. Last but not least: In our present world, it will only serve to cloud the revolutionary target of the working class to define proletarian revolution in all capitalist countries with not its real content but as “colonial revolution”, “revolution for national liberation”, “democratic revolution”, etc.

Imperialism and the change in colonial countries

“Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles.”[1] This is the briefest summary of 20th century. In imperialist epoch, it is possible neither to make a correct analysis of imperialism nor to develop an adequate anti-imperialism without taking into account the unequal but interdependent relations between countries at different levels of development. However, those Marxists who were carried away with the third-worldist tendency after The Second World War and especially in the 1960s sowed confusion about the inner laws of operation of the imperialist system.

Because of the sympathy and support for third-worldism, even bourgeois coquetries, whims in the guise of supporting “national” economy were applauded in the name of anti-imperialism. Medium or less developed capitalist countries of 1960s were categorised as oppressed nations under the label of “neo-colonies” or “semi-colonies”. Thus, the anti-capitalist mission of the struggle of the proletariat against capitalist system (i.e. genuine anti-imperialism) was abandoned based on the illusion that as if there was still a national question in these countries. The fact that imperialism is in fact an economic system that has its embodiment in every capitalist country’s internal functioning was obscured. A false anti-imperialism was created through hollow propagandism suggesting that there can be a “nationally independent” economic functioning even without leaving the system. Though the conscious creators of these kinds of political trends were the Stalinists, some other tendencies who called themselves Trotskyist also contributed to this confusion.

For instance, the description of “colony” which Mandel and his tendency helped popularised constitutes a typical example of this. It is not correct to insist on explaining the dependency of former colonial countries on the imperialist system with the concept of “colony” in a world where colonies have gone. In fact, this kind of attitude also comes to mean turning a deaf ear to Trotsky’s analyses. Just like Lenin, Trotsky also explained that imperialist epoch has a different quality from the colonialist period. In his article titled War and International, in 1914, he mentioned the general tendency of decolonization, caused by imperialism and the imperialist war.

But a redivision of colonies among the capitalist countries does not enlarge the foundation of capitalist development. … An additional factor of decisive importance is the capitalist awakening in the colonies themselves, to which the present War must give a mighty impetus.[2]

Mandel and others who think in a similar way tried somehow to accept only one side of Trotsky’s important considerations on the law of combined and uneven development, i.e. the “unevenness”, and obscure the other side, i.e. “the combined” development. They developed a definition of imperialist epoch that “prevents” (!), “retards” (!) the capitalist development in former colonial countries. The following quote from Mandel gives an example for hollow generalizations in contradiction to realities:

Yet, with the beginning of imperialist era, the operation of world capitalist market, let alone easing the “normal” capitalist development of less-developed countries, particularly a profound industrialisation, it constituted a factor hampering such a development. Marx’s formula that every developed country shows to the less developed the picture of their future, which preserved its significance throughout the age of free competition capitalism, has now lost its validity.[3]

As if the former colonial countries which gained their national independence in imperialist epoch would have developed more and would have been industrialized faster had they not got into economic relations with the developed capitalist countries and stayed isolated! Marx underlined an essential aspect of capitalist mode of production in saying that “every developed country shows to the less developed the picture of their future.” Capitalism would march towards being a world system incorporating every country and every region with different historical heritages and different levels of development. As a matter of fact, imperialist epoch verified Marx’s analysis of the course of capitalism. So, what is the difference between describing Marx’s important conclusions as “the formulas that make sense in the free competitive period” and saying “the law of uneven and combined development was discovered by Lenin”? To cut it short in the face of these empty muddles one should recall an important answer given to these kinds of assertions:

The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world. [4]

As Lenin indicates, the result of export of capital to colonial countries was the acceleration of capitalist development in these countries. And what happened? While these countries were driven into a staggering change because of capitalist development, their position, being a colony, could no longer be maintained. Sooner of later they had to take a seat within the family of modern nation-states as unequal elements in the face of powerful ones of the imperialist system. Was this situation the result of a somewhat easy granting of independence by the imperialist countries? Or, had the imperialist countries had to lay the material base causing this result by their own hands, no matter they like it or not, just because of the inner features of expansionism in the finance capital era?

These questions have been answered by subsequent events and national liberation struggles of the 20th century. However, Lenin drew attention to progressive tendency laying the material base for the future of colonial countries as early as 1916: “One of the main features of imperialism is that it accelerates capitalist development in the most backward countries, and thereby extends and intensifies the struggle against national oppression.”[5] Thus, the question of national independence which was created but could not be solved in the colonist expansion period of capitalism eventually became a burning question and was solved in imperialist epoch.

Imperialist epoch and national liberation struggles

From 1905 Lenin noticed that the Russian revolution gave an impetus to bourgeois democratic movements and national awakening in countries like Iran, Turkey and China. National awakening in colonial and semi-colonial countries was loaded with explosives for the world revolution. He considered the awakening in Asia and the rise in national liberation struggles in his articles at that time.[6] In the national awakening in colonial and semi-colonial countries he saw a potential of inflicting a blow to the system of colonialism. And what is more important, he tried to connect the awakening in Asia with the proletarian revolution in the West:

The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.[7]

As is seen, Lenin did not consider the struggles for national liberation in colonial countries as something isolated from the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat across the world, something not influencing it or being influenced by it. On the contrary, he had the view that social revolutions would proceed through interaction of worldwide revolutionary struggles going on at different levels. Taking into account the conditions of that time, he was pointing out that it would be a serious miscalculation to expect pure social revolutions:

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. -- to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution![8]

Basing his analyses on the uneven development of historical process Lenin tackled the national question by dividing countries in different historical steps into mainly three groups.[9] We know that these differences are now generally left far behind considering the present conditions. But, it is important to examine Lenin’s approach on the question at stake to understand the revolutionary line extending back to the past. About those capitalist countries for which the national question was a thing of the past, Lenin said:

In the Western countries the national movement is a thing of the distant past. In England, France, Germany, etc., the "fatherland" is a dead letter, it has played its historical role, i.e., the national movement cannot yield here anything progressive, anything that will elevate new masses to a new economic and political life. History's next step here is not transition from feudalism or from patriarchal savagery to national progress, to a cultured and politically free fatherland, but transition from a "fatherland" that has outlived its day, that is capitalistically overripe, to socialism..[10]

However, the situation was different in undeveloped countries:

They embrace the whole of Eastern Europe and all the colonies and semi-colonies… In those areas, as a rule, there still exist oppressed and capitalistically undeveloped nations. Objectively, these nations still have general national tasks to accomplish, namely, democratic tasks, the tasks of overthrowing foreign oppression .[11]

As lessons derived by Marx from the revolutionary experience of 1848 show; the European bourgeoisie was horrified as the proletariat had entered the historical arena and it could not any more lead the bourgeois democratic transformations in a revolutionary way. From then on, this task would be fulfilled by the proletariat within the context of permanent revolution. But according to Lenin, Asia has not yet passed the way Europe had left behind and historical reality was different in various countries of Asia:

Advanced Europe is commanded by a bourgeoisie which supports everything that is backward. … Everywhere in Asia a mighty democratic movement is growing, spreading and gaining in strength. The bourgeoisie there is as yet siding with the people against reaction.[12]

Lenin thought Asian countries were even far behind Russia from the standpoint of the level of capitalism and thus of the working class. Therefore, it was possible to say that there was a bourgeoisie in these countries that may in a way play the role of the progressive bourgeoisie in Europe in the 18th century. Taking historical differences into account in national question, Lenin considered national awakening in colonies as a progressive step with bourgeois democratic character and he supported them. This way of thinking, prevalent on Lenin, would also be prevalent on national question and the question of colonies which were addressed in the Second Congress of the Comintern and would serve a base for the debates up to now.

Indeed, contrary to some arguments, this approach of Lenin towards national question is correct in general and it is not in conflict with the idea of permanence of the proletarian revolution. Therefore, those considerations that Lenin changed his approach on this subject after a certain point are kind of overstatements. Since Lenin did not divide the process of revolution which has to progress under the hegemony of the proletariat into different stages of power; but he was pointing to an inevitable historical process which would open the road for the working class in backward countries.

In historically belated colonial and semi-colonial countries, the bourgeoisie could still play a progressive role in the framework of gaining national independence; but in imperialist epoch how comprehensive or stable could it be? It must be kept in mind that Lenin never attributed the bourgeoisie of these counties an absolute or stable progressive mission; quite the contrary, he warned communists about how slippery they could be:

Not infrequently (notably in Austria and Russia) we find the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations talking of national revolt, while in practice it enters into reactionary compacts with the bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation behind the backs of, and against, its own people.[13]

In fact, national liberation struggles in various Asian and African countries sufficiently exposed the slippery and dual attitude of the bourgeoisie of the colonial and semi-colonial countries which were struggling for their own nation-state in imperialist epoch. But we must never forget that in terms of its historical and social scope a national liberation war is just what it is; and nothing more! A struggle of this kind can obviously march under the leadership of the bourgeoisie; so, it can involve various compromises with imperialists. But this does not reduce a just national uprising of masses to the level of an unjust struggle. Lenin’s warning about this is very important:

The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain conditions, be utilised by another “great” power for its own, equally imperialist, aims, is just as unlikely to make the Social Democrats refuse to recognise the right of nations to self determination…[14]

He also makes an important assessment about national movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries:

…the semi-colonial countries, such as China, Persia and Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population of 1,000 million. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements either have hardly begun, or have still a long way to go. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation -- and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing else than the recognition of the right to self-determination; they must also render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising -- or revolutionary war, in the event of one -- against the imperialist powers that oppress them. [15]

Lenin did not content himself with only noting the bourgeois character of national liberation movements. He insists on the necessity of distinguishing between different tendencies within “the bourgeois democratic movement”. According to him, the more revolutionary elements (that is, the petty-bourgeois radicals and peasant masses) should be assisted in their uprisings against the imperialist states oppressing them. But what does that mean? Communists should deal with democratic demands without separating them from the aim of proletarian revolution, and wage their struggle with this approach. The support to be provided by communists to movements of national liberation on the basis of oppressed nations’ just struggle is a secondary issue from the standpoint of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Since the primary concern for the proletariat is to make all democratic demands, including national self-determination, directly part of its struggle for power. Lenin mentioned this important issue in connection with the recognition of national self determination. He made an emphasis on “...the necessity to subordinate the struggle for the demand under discussion and for all the basic demands of political democracy directly to the revolutionary mass struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeois governments and for the achievement of socialism.”[16]

Another important point is about what must be understood from the support for national liberation struggles. First, every support only makes sense under certain concrete conditions; so, the question of who will be supported, and how, is not a matter of principle, but a conditional tactical question. Second, revolutionary proletariat gives its support to the just struggle of the oppressed nation and realization of this support depends on the level of the revolutionary organization of the proletariat. For example, a just national struggle may gain a big momentum under circumstances where the workers’ movement is calm or revolutionary political organization of the working class has swung far back for various reasons. Under such circumstances the support of the revolutionary proletariat could largely be on a principal level. But under conditions that revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is on the rise, the task is essentially to support the oppressed nation’s right to self-determination and to work to establish working class hegemony over the toiling masses revolting on the basis of the demand of national liberation. We can reiterate in a brief way that in its revolutionary struggle the proletariat defends the right to national self-determination of a nation with a view to subordinating this democratic demand to its struggle for power.

The movement of toiling masses in a country that rises on the basis of demanding national liberation can take a real anti-imperialist course only on this basis, and only under the hegemony of the proletariat. Otherwise a national liberation struggle cannot go beyond its limits. And within these limits, it must never be forgotten that its essential concern is not liberation from the imperialist-capitalist system but from being a colony. Therefore we consider national liberation struggles as anti-colonialist struggles in their essence. And this holds true even if they are waged against an imperialist state in 20th century.

Lenin’s assessments on the significance of national liberation struggles gained a new dimension with the victory of October Revolution and establishment process of the Soviet republics following it. Under the new historical setting where the proletariat rose to power in one part of the world it was correct to seek to win over the toiling masses which were struggling for national liberation. By this way, a broad front of struggle against imperialist system on a world scale could be formed under the leadership of the proletariat. Besides, it was even more important at a time when the Soviet proletariat faced an assault of the imperialist powers. The drive for winning the toiling masses of the colonial and semi-colonial countries, particularly in Asia, to the side of the October Revolution was an extension of the national worker-peasant alliance on a world scale. That is why Lenin attributed great importance to national liberation struggles. Nevertheless, looking at his close interest in revolutionary developments in Asian countries, some researchers of history asserted that Lenin was gradually getting away from a “Euro-centric” understanding of revolution. According to them, Lenin moved closer to the idea that an Eastern storm from peasant nations would overthrow capitalism. Although such interpretations have been in circulation for a long time in the name of “Marxism”, they have nothing to do with Lenin. These are exaggerated attempts to portray Lenin as a third-worldist. While noting the awakening in Asia, Lenin was very clear on his conception of the world revolution before and after the October Revolution, and during the first congresses of Comintern. He always believed that the proletarian world revolution could only march to victory through revolutionary leap forward of the proletariat of advanced European countries.

About distortions we need to underline one last point. It is true that Lenin considered national liberation struggles as an ally of the proletarian world revolution whose natural aim is to overthrow imperialist-capitalist system. But he never left the door open for anti-Marxist interpretations which amount to identifying the two or substitution of the former for the latter. With the victory of October Revolution and birth of a new political centre of power, he advocated the perspective of bringing the toiling masses of the oppressed nations and colonial countries together in a war front under the politic leadership of the Soviet proletariat. There is no similarity between his approach and the distorted understanding of “anti-imperialist struggle” which was later shaped under the dominance of Stalinism. Because, the latter is a political tendency that substitutes national liberation struggles for the proletarian revolution, and that seeks to prevent the proletariat’s political hegemony. Stalinism in fact forced the revolutionary proletariat to submit to the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie in the name of a so-called anti-imperialist front. With the pretext of defending “the interests of the Soviet state which are supreme,” it strangled revolutions that had the potential of developing towards founding a workers’ rule.

Imperialism and the question of political independence

Marxists like Bukharin and Pyatakov considered imperialism as “a system of foreign policy” and consequently took wrong political attitudes about national self-determination. In fact, they shared Lenin’s thought that the 20th century was the era of finance capital. But for Bukharin and Pyatakov, the concept of imperialism meant the “policy” pursued by finance capital. That was the point they moved away from Lenin. However, their approach was completely different from that of renegades like Kautsky who preached that a peaceful policy is well possible and favourable in the imperialist epoch. Bukharin and Pyatakov regarded imperialism as an unavoidable policy of finance capital based on oppression and violence. Bukharin said “Such a policy implies violent methods, for the expansion of the state territory means war”. [17]

In fact, the reason that propelled Bukharin to make this assessment of imperialism was his analysis of world economy based on the idea of “national capitalist trust”. According to him, despite a fierce competition on the international arena in the imperialist epoch, competition was coming to an end within national borders because of monopolization. And with active involvement of the state in the economy, one unified trust was appearing on a national scale. And this results in wars between capitalist countries on the international arena for extending their national borders. Finance capital could not do without colonies.

But Lenin analyzed and defined imperialism not as a policy of finance capital, but rather as the very international economic system which itself is just the dominance of finance capital. As a result, Lenin did not consider colonies a sine qua non for finance capital. He was right.

It is quite possible to gain the political independence within the limits of the system through struggles for national liberation in colonial countries. Yes, imperialist epoch is a reactionary period in general. But this fact does not mean that imperialist countries can only maintain their domination by colonizing other countries. Besides, the real question at stake is not whether imperialist countries would grant political independence to colonial countries or not. The question is whether it is possible to gain political independence within the operation of the laws of imperialist system without breaking with it. Lenin, considering it possible, pointed out that it was through national struggle to achieve it:

National struggle, national insurrection, national secession are fully “achievable” and are met with in practice under imperialism. They are even more pronounced, for imperialism does not halt the development of capitalism and the growth of democratic tendencies among the mass of the population. [18]

In addition, Lenin criticized Rosa Luxemburg, Pyatakov and Bukharin for being carried away by the tendency of imperialist economism. These Marxists held a view that can be summarized as self-determination of nations was impossible under capitalism, and it was unnecessary under socialism since national question would have already been solved under socialism. What lies beneath their error was the fact that they confused economic liberation with political liberation. So Rosa and co-thinkers substituted the question that if it was possible to gain political independence under capitalism for the fact that there was economic dependence. Lenin reminded them that finance capital was able to subjugate, and already did, an independent country. All theses about the “impossibility” of political independence under the domination of finance capital resulted from lack of an adequate understanding of this matter. Lenin said:

In this situation it is not only “achievable”, from the point of view of finance capital, but sometimes even profitable for the trusts, for their imperialist policy, for their imperialist war, to allow individual small nations as much democratic freedom as they can, right down to political independence, so as not to risk damaging their “own” military operations.[19]

It is indeed not correct to assert that it is impossible for national self determination to be achieved within the framework of imperialist system. But a self-determination which is merely political independence does not alter painful economic consequences of capitalist system for the working class and toiling masses. From this point of view, what is decisive in determining the fate of the oppressed and exploited masses of weak nations is whether they will emancipate from capitalism or not. Only in this context it can be said that “right of determination” is impossible under capitalism and unnecessary –because the problem will have already been solved– under socialism. But to say that does not mean that we have taken a concrete attitude on the question of the right of political independence which was a practical and actual question on the agenda of the colonial countries. Upon this was Lenin’s criticism of Rosa based. Lenin was right in pointing out that she confused two different aspects.

On the other hand, to claim that nations can be economically independent without breaking with imperialist system is a nonsense and reactionary petty-bourgeois utopia. Therefore, the point Lenin and Rosa disagreed on was only the question of “political independence”. They were in complete agreement on the other side of the question, that is, the impossibility of national independence on the level of economy. Rosa Luxemburg correctly grasped the limited side of the national liberation struggle with respect to the future –e.g. the proletarian revolution–, and drew attention to problems that can be created by petty-bourgeois nationalist tendencies. While petty-bourgeois left tendencies are obscuring the revolutionary line of the proletariat, one must definitely be alert that defending the right to national self-determination and opposing annexations should not cast a cloud over the danger of nationalism and social-chauvinism. In capitalist countries where national question has already been solved, and the proletarian revolution is on the agenda, a real danger lies in that the native bourgeoisie may try to sell their self-seeking adventures under cover of national self-determination.

Marxists whom Lenin criticized for being fallen into the erroneous imperialist economism did not take into account the different conditions between the countries that were belatedly climbing the steps of history and the countries in which national question was no more on the agenda. They did not reflect adequately on the historically progressive character –with respect to past– of political independence of colonial countries which were backward countries progressing towards capitalism and their joining in the family of modern nation states. For example, Bukharin opposed the inclusion of the principle of national self-determination to the party programme proposed in the Eight Congress of RCP(B) (1919). His reasoning was: “A nation means the bourgeoisie together with the proletariat. And are we, the proletarians, to recognize the right to self-determination of the despised bourgeoisie?”[20]

But according to Lenin, the inconsistency that disturbed Bukharin was a fact which existed in real life. Bukharin was talking about a process of separation within nations resulting from the process of capitalist development, i.e. about separation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie. For backward nations this separation was not a completed fact yet. And Lenin took differences of various nations in terms of their historical conditions into consideration on the question of how the right to national self-determination would be used. For example, the following was in his draft program presented to the Eight Congress of RCP(B):

On the question of who expresses the will of the nation on the matter of secession, the R.C.P. upholds the historical class view and takes into consideration the level of historical development of the nation concerned—on the way from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy, or from bourgeois to Soviet or proletarian democracy, etc.[21]

In short, in order to take a correct attitude in concrete cases, those nations that are at an historical stage where separation between proletariat and bourgeoisie has not sufficiently developed should also be taken into account. Lenin pointed out an important fact: “We say that account must be taken of the stage reached by the given nation on its way from medievalism to bourgeois democracy, and from bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy. ”And concluding: “Every nation must obtain the right to self-determination, and that will make the self-determination of the working people easier.” “Communism cannot be imposed by force.”[22]

Imperialist era and the distinction between just and unjust wars

Within the context of debates on the national question, Lenin paid great attention to the distinction between just and unjust wars. It was indeed very important because of the war conditions of that period to make this distinction and a prerequisite for communists to take the right attitude against wars. The declaration, adopted unanimously in Basel Congress of the Second International in 1912, is particularly important in this context. In this declaration, imperialists’ preparations for a war of plunder were exposed and workers were called for struggling against the threat of war. The idea that this state of war indicated a state of revolution at the same time was generally accepted. Should the war break out, the task of the parties and socialists affiliated to the Second International was to make use of this economic and social crisis for realizing socialist revolution. But when the imperialist war broke out in 1914, most of the socialists who had signed the Basel declaration, broke their word, voted for war budgets in their parliaments, and took sides with their bourgeois governments.

The renegades of the Second International, in an attempt to justify their attitude, held on to the lie that even aggressor European countries that started the imperialist division war had the right to “defend the fatherland”. Struggle against this political tendency, namely social-chauvinism in political literature, became a burning question. Therefore, it was a necessity to reassert the distinction between just and unjust wars under conditions of imperialist stage of capitalism.

In order to identify the character of a war, one must, above all, clearly identify the character of the policy causing the war. Since every war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. And there cannot be an abstract criterion for judging the character of a war and deciding if it is just or unjust.

However, to give an example, French socialists, whose record were remarkably stained for praising “patriotism” in the name of socialism (famous Jaurésism), acted in harmony with their “fame” during the imperialist division war. They could act on the criterion “an attacked country has the right to defence” in the war of competition and re-division of the spheres of influence among imperialist countries. In his criticism of these kinds of chauvinist approaches, Lenin pointed out the very essence of the question; “As if the question were: Who was the first to attack, and not: What are the causes of the war? What are its aims? Which classes are waging it?”[23]

While “defence of the fatherland” can have a just and progressive character only under certain historical conditions, its application to a war between imperialists is nothing but deceiving workers and siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie. To expose the deceitfulness of social-chauvinists it is necessary to remember, above all, why Marx and Engels considered national liberation wars between 1789-1871 progressive, just and supportable:

When, in speaking of the wars of such periods, socialists stressed the legitimacy of “defensive” wars, they always had these aims in mind, namely revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By a “defensive” war socialists have always understood a “just” war in this sense (Wilhelm Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). It is only in this sense that socialists have always regarded wars “for the defence of the fatherland”, or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just.[24]

But the war that broke out in 1914 was an unjust war started by imperialist countries to re-divide the world. Striving to impose the idea of “defence of the fatherland” on the proletariat of imperialist countries meant directly aiding the imperialist powers. In Lenin’s words, “It is in this way that the peoples are being deceived with ‘national’ ideology and the term ‘defence of the fatherland’, by the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie, in the war now being waged between slave-holders with purpose of consolidating slavery.”[25]

These kinds of wars are neither just nor defensive wars for the proletariat of those capitalist countries fighting each other to share spheres of influence. For a war of that type there is no sense in asking who attacked first. Because both the “attacking” and “attacked” sides are the sides of a conflict of imperialist interests and therefore the proletariat cannot have a problem like “the defence of the fatherland” in this war. The proletariat is not part of a settling of accounts between capitalist countries challenging each other to gain a more advantageous position against others. For proletarians of capitalist countries involved in war, the question is to wish for the defeat of their “own” government and turn the imperialist war into a civil war which will end the bourgeois order. Proletarians who are armed due to war conditions must take it as their fundamental class task to point their guns to their own bourgeois governments.

Replacing this policy with the policy of “defence of the fatherland” is a naked betrayal to the proletarian revolution. Because in countries waging war for imperialist purposes, the proletariat’s involvement in this war with the illusion of “defence of the fatherland” means slaughtering other counties’ proletarians for the sake of its “own” bourgeoisie’s victory. This attitude is obviously trampling on the principle of proletarian internationalism expressed as “workers of all countries, unite”. Just as Lenin said:

Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that “the workers have no country” – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.[26]

However, opposition to the policy of “defence of the fatherland” does not justify rejecting, or denying the possibility of, any national wars, which means swinging to another extreme. The situation about colonies and oppressed nations that are subject to division in an imperialist war is different. This is because in these countries “defence of the fatherland” contains the solution of a belated historical question, that is, of national independence question. And communists continue to consider wars for national liberation arising on this basis just and progressive. After pointing out that “the fatherland and nation” are historical categories, Lenin says; “I am not at all opposed to wars waged in defence of democracy or against national oppression, nor do I fear such words as ‘defence of the fatherland’ in reference to these wars or to insurrections.”[27] Indeed, socialists always take sides with the oppressed and do not oppose wars waged against capitalist oppression with democratic or socialist content. In order to recognise a national war as a just one, its substance must first be identified.

How, then, can we disclose and define the "substance" of a war? War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war. If it was an imperialist policy, i.e., one designed to safeguard the interests of finance capital and rob and oppress colonies and foreign countries, then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist. If it was a national liberation policy, i.e., one expressive of the mass movement against national oppression, then the war stemming from that policy is a war of national liberation.[28]

There is not much controversy on that wars waged by oppressed nations for national liberation in colonial countries are just wars. What must be discussed is the situation when a capitalist country which has political independence and is already ruled by the bourgeoisie becomes the subject of an imperialist division war, and is occupied by another one. Can we still talk about a just national war in this situation? Should communists, in the name of not sinking into social-chauvinism, be indifferent to the struggle of revolting toiling masses for “defence of the fatherland” under these conditions?

First of all, it must be made clear that in case of an occupation or annexation of the territory of a sovereign nation state, the fundamental question for the communist approach is not whether to defend the land or not. Against an attack or annexation of the land where the working class and toiling masses live, the questions to be answered are: what is to be defended, how, against whom, for what, on what basis? As expressed in Lenin’s attitude, what communists oppose in “defence of the fatherland” is that the proletariat was driven into a position of defending and supporting the bourgeois rule in its own country under the pretext of war. And what is the correct attitude then?

The Paris Commune which passed into the history of revolutionary struggle of the world working class as an early experience in the context of “seizure of power” provides us with an early example of this subject as well. While defending Paris against the Prussian army, Communards, who “were ready to storm the heavens” in Marx’ words, did not run to the service of the bourgeois Versailles government. On the contrary, while pushing back the armies of invasion, they established their own rule. The Paris proletariat was too young in terms of political experience. It did not yet win the support of the toiling masses, it was isolated. It did not know what to do, made some mistakes and was defeated in the end. But, despite everything, it showed us an example of the capability of the proletariat armed against the attack of an occupying army to put an end to the rule of its class enemy inside while fighting foreign invaders.

Politically inexperienced Paris proletariat was not yet distorted with the strategies of rotten Stalinist “leaders” of later periods, who divided working-class consciousness into endless stages (first struggle together with the bourgeoisie against foreign enemy and then comes the time for struggle against the bourgeoisie, which means never!). Yet, it was still kind of a pre-experience; its shortcomings and mistakes were not to be ignored. Thus Lenin noted the mistakes of the Paris Commune as lessons to be learned. He pointed out that part of Paris workers was plagued by “national ideology”, which was an example of petit-bourgeois illusions leading to vital mistakes.

Another example to remember is the case of “national question” that arose in Belgium when it was occupied by Germany during the First World War, which is different from the case of colonial countries. Lenin discussed whether there could be a national war even in a capitalist country like Belgium if Germany occupied it and whether then communists would consider it just or unjust? He maintained that annexations must be opposed and the right to national self-determination must be acknowledged in these kinds of situations as well. Because he was against the mindset of those who consider forceful land annexations “de-facto” situations and take the attitude of indifference in these kinds of changes of border in the name of political-economic centralization which is supposed to pave the way for socialism. That is why he criticized Polish Marxists who were saying “We are absolutely opposed to erecting new border stones in Europe and reconstruction of those destroyed by imperialism”. He considered this justification of annexations a degeneration of Marxism. Maintaining that fusion of nations could only be accomplished on the basis of freewill Lenin stood firm in his position that forceful annexations without the will of people must be opposed. He reminded that even in a country which has resolved the question of independence long time ago –as in the case of Belgium–, defence of national self-determination might come into agenda again.

It would be useful to highlight some important points to clarify the subject. Historically, a “national war” in Belgium had nothing in common with national liberation wars in colonial countries. Belgium’s conditions were completely different from colonial countries. The bourgeoisie in a country like Belgium would not suddenly stop being a reactionary class and long-time enemy of the proletariat and gain a relatively “progressive” character just because of an occupation or annexation. Therefore, for these kinds of “national questions” which may occur in capitalist countries, communists’ task is to advocate the right to self-determination in the example of Paris Commune, that is, to connect resolution of these kinds of questions to the proletarian revolution. Thus, an occupation or annexation in a capitalist country brings forth the task of the proletariat to establish its revolutionary hegemony under conditions of war. So, the proletariat must be able to make use of the circumstances that drive the toiling masses to a national revolt, gain the leadership of masses rising for the “defence of the fatherland”, and lead them to social revolution.

In today’s world, various rivalries and conflicts of interest exist between large and small capitalist countries – yet these do not fall within the framework of struggle between oppressor and oppressed nations. Let there be no misunderstanding: due to imperialist interventions and impositions upon weaker capitalist countries, the labouring masses in these nations suffer intensified oppression. However, unlike the conditions in colonial countries where the bourgeoisie could once play a progressive historical role against pre-capitalist archaic structures, we now face nations fractured by sharpened class antagonisms. What stand before us today are capitalist states with their own political institutions and bourgeois apparatuses of domination. The former prominence of the “oppressor vs oppressed nation” question has been superseded by the “oppressor vs oppressed class” contradiction under capitalist states. But the question of taking a correct attitude against wars started by imperialist countries in their competition and struggle for hegemony to re-divide spheres of influence still maintains its importance.

For instance, is it possible to remain neutral on the question of Iraq where the US, in its growing aggressiveness, is obviously getting prepared for a vicious attack before the eyes of the whole world? Although there is nothing to support in Saddam’s regime, the proletariat has to wage a struggle against imperialist war on a world scale. Without opposing the preparations of American imperialism for an evidently unjust war, it is impossible for the working class to win the toiling masses to its own revolutionary objective neither in Iraq nor in any other country. It would be a great crime not to take an attitude against imperialist war threats and imperialist wars. In the case of a possible war or an US occupation of Iraq, the war of Iraqi people against American imperialism would of course be a just national liberation war. Similarly, it goes without saying that, in the Middle East, Palestinian people’s national liberation war is just against Israel’s unjust war to repress Palestinian people ruthlessly.

True, communists advocate national self-determination, oppose military interventions and annexations by imperialist countries. They consider oppressed nations’ struggles for political independence just and support them. But in all capitalist countries, communists’ main concern is to utilise revolutionary situations caused by war in the direction of the proletarian revolution. The struggle against military interventions by imperialist states must not be waged to defend “national unity” (!) with the bourgeoisie or to strengthen bourgeois regimes, but for the realisation of social revolution. Therefore, communists must remain supremely vigilant in all countries where the bourgeoisie holds power during wartime, and must recognise as their fundamental task the liberation of the working class from the shackles of bourgeois “national ideology”. As the case of Iraq clearly reveals, the way to get rid of imperialist powers’ unjust and atrocious military interventions does not lie in supporting bourgeois governments playing the “victim”, which leads eventually to survival of their rule. In the face of an unjust imperialist attack, which brings forth the right to self-determination of the attacked country, the task of the revolutionary proletariat is in no way limited to recognising this right. On the contrary, the real task begins at that point. Because, even in just defensive wars in which the working masses, the majority of the nation, take upon the armed struggle to death to save the country from occupation, the bourgeoisie has only one goal: none but to protect its own order and consolidate it! This is what the ruling bourgeoisie understands from the right to self-determination, nothing more! So, the task of the revolutionary proletariat waging its struggle under these conditions is to win the leadership of the nation and pave the way for the toiling masses to determine their own destiny. In the heat of war, workers in all capitalist countries must advance with the aim of overthrowing their own bourgeois regimes and transforming imperialist wars into civil war.

There is one question that needs to be highlighted here: if a major imperialist state attacks a smaller capitalist state (as in the Gulf War in which the US attacked Iraq), the victory of relatively smaller capitalist state (you can read it as the victory of Saddam) is said to be a blow to imperialism. According to this approach, the position of the major capitalist state would be shaken because of the defeat, and this would create important possibilities for the struggle of the proletariat. These kinds of speculative considerations underestimate manoeuvring capabilities of imperialist powers and overlook the indispensability of international organization and struggle of the proletariat. In fact, these kinds of attitudes are extensions of a deformed understanding of anti-imperialism.

While the defeat of an imperialist power in some adventurist enterprise against a small nation might boost the morale of workers and toilers worldwide, the analysis must not be one-dimensional, nor should such possibilities ever be overstated. Without revolutionary vanguard organisation at the international level, it would be a grave error to assume such situations could spontaneously create significant opportunities for working-class struggle. In fact, there’s a crucial point overlooked in this accounting of large versus small states. Major imperialist powers possess a large manoeuvring capacity when it comes to regional wars they’ve instigated or military operations within their spheres of influence – both in extricating themselves from unfavourable outcomes and in recasting defeats as “victories”. By contrast, the bourgeois regime of a smaller capitalist country subjected to military intervention may indeed suffer genuine destabilisation from defeat. In short, those who in today’s world lapse into pseudo-anti-imperialism by proclaiming “let’s support the smaller bourgeoisie against the larger” during imperialist-provoked regional wars are simultaneously turning a blind eye to revolutionary situations emerging in the attacked countries. And in fact what fundamentally scares all imperialist states is not a small capitalist country challenging a major one; but a proletarian revolution breaking out in any capitalist country, no matter how big it is.

We can conclude this discussion by approaching the subject from a different angle. Overwhelming majority of colonial and semi-colonial countries of Lenin’s time gained their political independence, thus joining the family of capitalist states by establishing their own nation state. As with Turkey, India and other similar examples, some of these countries even made quite a long way in terms of economy compared to others. Although they are in lower ranks of the imperialist hierarchy, they set about to become regional powers and tease other countries around as they become stronger. Therefore, in order to adopt a correct attitude towards today’s wars, it is necessary to take into account the concrete conditions of the world we live in today and changing conditions in comparison with yesterday.

We should not forget that major imperialist countries are not alone in embarking on expansionist adventures. Today, the situation of capitalist countries (like Turkey, India or Iran) which strive to be an imperialist in their region, a sub-imperialist power, is striking. There are skirmishes, reactionary adventures and unjust wars provoked by these countries to create their sphere of influence in their region. The attitude of the proletariat cannot be to wage a “national” or a “fatherland” war in the same front with its “own” bourgeoisie against another one. Because of concrete conditions, Lenin’s warnings made in the context of condemning social-chauvinists of imperialist countries, must be kept in mind by communists of all capitalist countries today. It is downright nationalism and social-chauvinism to justify, under the pretext of “defence of the fatherland,” involvement in a war under bourgeois hegemony for the purpose of strengthening the armies of bourgeois states that drive their nation into unjust wars in their expansionist adventures.

---