Contribution on imperialism from a sympathiser in India

Submitted by ICConline on

Printer-friendly version

ICC introduction

We are publishing below extracts of a contribution from a close contact in India. We think that his denunciation of the powers waging the current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East shows a clear internationalist position and is fundamentally different from the pseudo-internationalism of the leftists. The text was written as a basis for discussion and some parts, in which the comrade polemicises with Indian leftists, are not taken up in these extracts. We however think that it is an important contribution for further reflection on the internationalist position of the Communist Left in the face of the war. We should also point out that we do not agree with all of his formulations about Lenin’s weaknesses on national liberation and state capitalism, for example, and also on the definition of marxism as a “science”, rather than as a scientific method. But we will return to these points in another text.

 

General statement on imperialism

Amidst the general backdrop of the two major wars in the world now, Russo-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine, there is growing talk on imperialism and colonialism as well as neo-colonialism. A whole slew of bourgeois intelligentsia has come out to represent either side’s position in the war. The leftists, liberal and conservative academics have taken various differing positions on the conflict. Those belonging to various “isms” of so-called scientific thinking have too taken their positions. Some offer calls for subaltern internationalism yet in their own analysis fail to see the role of world capital and accumulation thereof as well resort to some amount of self-determination and have not yet shaken off the irregular strategy of national liberation.

“Evidently, for a just world order to exist, the share of the world economy must depend on the actual proportion of a country’s population. A violation of this principle amounts to the common people of developing countries being reduced to a subservient position in, both, complex and simple value extraction / transfer. While majority of people in such countries are compelled to labour more and more in return for less and less from the economy, the economic elites of the same countries – albeit at times in a subordinate role – converge with the global alliance of economic elites. Typically, when the rate of profit in these developing economies decline, their economic elites tend to financialize their wealth in dollars, which together harms their local economy.”[1]

The above statement is indicative of the general position even leftists tend to take. While it is certainly admissible that the labouring class of the so-called global south are amongst the most exploited, this analysis does not engage with the true internationalist nature of the communist movement and does not understand the real concept of imperialism. One might even say that it is haunted by a spectre of self-determination.

A further example would be:

“Indeed, a close reading of the subtext of the Israel-Palestine conflict reveals precisely how the ‘war on terror’ serves as a smokescreen for the convergence of U.S. imperialism, Israeli elites, and Arab elites with respect to beating back the revolutionary nationalism in the region.”[2]

Nationalism of any form, whether revolutionary or democratic, serves only to further divide the working classes. A very ill-conceived way of looking at class struggle, such as the idea that revolutionary socialism can principally only arise in the most backward countries and self-determination and national liberation can help pit the working class of each country against the bourgeoisie of each country, does not understand capitalism in the context of imperialism.

Prashad writes: “Why does Hamas attack Israel? Because a political grammar has been imposed on the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis by the nature of the Israeli occupation. Indeed, any time there is a modest development for talks - often brokered by Qatar - between Hamas and the Israeli government, those talks are silenced by the sound of Israeli fighter jets.”[3]

This is a very mundane view of the events in Gaza. He presents the Palestinians as the infallible people and Hamas as their political voice while the Israelis are an occupying colonial force. This childish malady of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has been the dominating style of many a liberal and leftists. Terms such as nationalism, self-determination and liberating struggle are clear indicators that they have not truly understood the meaning of capitalism and how imperialism functions as a stage, the highest one, of capitalism. Imperialism is, in its roots, a result of the accumulation of capital.

Again, now we must come back to a critique of the leftists and liberals who are a latently retrogressive force. No leftist or liberal has truly escaped this spectre of national liberation which, one could say, speaks to their lack of understanding of capitalism and imperialism.

First considering the leftist position for it makes a call to subaltern internationalism which veils a larger goal of revolutionary nationalism. The usage of terms by both leftists and liberals such as “Neo-Colonialism” “Islamophobia” and “Jewish colonisation” do nothing but engage in mysticism and counterrevolutionary phrase-mongering.

Their goal of national liberation in Palestine is very much apparent in their writing.

“Likewise, the strategy of partition was a potent tool of British imperialists, which was clearly compatible with the doctrine of ‘divida et impera’ (divide and rule). The strategy of partition was a prominent, tried-and-tested strategy of the ruling elites of the British imperialist era. Prime Minister Lloyd George, for example, had partitioned Ireland in December 1921. As the Second British Empire proved difficult to hold on to post the end of World War II, India too was partitioned. With the loss of India, the Oriental end-point of the Second British Empire was immediately re-established on the Persian Gulf, with the Palestinian region rising in importance. This was more so, given that imperial control over neighbouring Egypt proved difficult, especially as Egyptian nationalism grew and eventually precipitated the toppling of the monarchy in order to establish the Egyptian republic in 1952. Given this, Palestine was the obvious alternative for the strategic control of the Suez Canal that connects European trade with Asia.”[4]

I.

The acquisition of new territories can be said to form a part of imperialism; however one must understand that imperialism is a specific phenomenon that is an essential and final step of capitalist mode of production. Such an argument as using imperialism in a bourgeois sense thereby labelling even Rome an imperial power is akin to stating that alienation and exploitation are unique only to capitalism. This romantic-utopic view of imperialism is highly improper. Imperialism is, instead, a stage in capitalist mode of production since it arises out of a specific crisis of capitalism: A crisis of markets, acquisition and fall of profit.

The imperialist phase of capitalist accumulation comprises the industrialisation and capitalist emancipation of the hinterland where capital formerly realised its surplus value. Characteristics of this phase are lending abroad, railroad construction, revolutions and wars.[5] This offers us an insight into the functioning of imperialism, as a product of capitalism, rooted firmly in the latent contradictions of capitalism. Unlike bourgeois reactionaries who often portray conquests as an inevitability or the norm, those who understand Marxism as a science are able to offer a more holistic understanding, such as the understanding provided by Luxemburg.

Lenin’s role too cannot be discounted in providing a deeper analysis of imperialism. In his role in the analysis of banks in part II of his text, “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, Lenin writes: “The principal and primary function of banks is to serve as middle-men in the making of payments. In doing so they transform inactive money capital into active, that is, into capital yielding a profit […] The big enterprises, and the banks in particular, not only absorb the small ones, but also ‘annex’ them, subordinate them, bring them into their ‘own’ group or concern by acquiring ‘holdings’ in their capital, by purchasing or exchanging shares, by a system of credits, etc., etc.”

Lenin’s analysis and further polemics against various bourgeois economists and social democrats such as Hobson (former) and Kautsky (latter) should be held in good respect. From Lenin’s statement (amongst other things), the overall schema of imperialism can be ascertained: the need to capitalise surplus value and to maintain stable profits by acquiring new resources and markets as well as cheaper labour is the driving force for capitalists to seek out newer territory and what distinguishes capitals’ pursuit of new territory from feudal pursuit of new territory. The underlying and perhaps principal contradiction of capitalism is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. To maintain and grow the capitalisation of surplus value, larger capitalists have to expand their markets into all other regions making imperialism a stage in capitalist development.

II.

While the above stands true, one must also understand that capitalism and the imperial stage is also subject to change. In this case, the role of the state is essential. The ultimate condition of production is the reproduction of the conditions of production.[6] A single capitalist not only has to continue production but must also continue the reproduction of his raw materials which other capitalists do, and their own reproduction is performed by other capitalists. In doing so, this reproduction of the forces of production is endless and will consume the entire world thereby leading to no place in our world being free of capitalism. This speaks to the integration of the world capitalist market and the creation of world capital. One does need to go deep into ideologies of the state and its apparatuses. What is more important is, “What is the purpose of the state and its apparatuses”? The state serves to enable the reproduction of the productive forces of capitalism and to ensure the reproduction of the entire mode of production itself. In doing so, it sometimes negotiates with trade unions and offers piecemeal reforms. However, today, the state’s role in the economy is much greater. Many call this socialist when in reality they are state capitalist.

It is in this analysis of state capitalism where we can find Lenin’s greatest drawback. Instead of the state acting as a puppet of the capitalists, these capitalists are subordinated by the state to ensure reproduction of productive forces and the mode of production as a whole. To condense an elaborate argument, the subordination of national capital by the state as well as the internal contradictions of capitalism that leads to need to expand across the world has led to the emergence of imperialism and state capitalism as its most driving form.

The defects of Lenin’s theory and soviet imperialism can be readily seen. In his thesis on “The socialist revolution and the right of nations to self-determination”, Lenin says “the semi colonial countries, such as China, Persia and Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population of 1000 million, the bourgeois democratic movements have either hardly begun or have 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.”

It is very much clear that Lenin supports the wars of national liberation and the question of a popular frontesque alliance escapes him. Even in the case of wars of national liberation, the national bourgeois are already cowed by the imperialist world capital or they themselves became imperialist in nature.

 

Raghav / November 2024

 

[2] Ibidem

[5]  Luxemburg, 'Accumulation of Capital', Ch.XXX, pg. 419

[6] Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, Lenin and Philosophy, p85

Rubric: 

Correspondence