CHAPTER ONE

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.