Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism

Rating:
Summary: Canadians never could understand socialism.
Review: Although often too complex for most Canucks, it logically states yet another case against capitalism. Whether he was right or not, and whether his theories were applied is up to the reader.

Rating:
Summary: Still a Clasic
Review: This is one of Lenin's major works. He shows how the economical system of capitalism leads to large contradictions between states and war. A clasic still relevant in theese times of "globalisation" (imperialism).

Rating:
Summary: Kautsky's Revenge
Review: V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) breathed during the height of the second industrial revolution. He witnessed the wild, berserk scramble for colonies and the absurd carnage of the first world war. This work's worth exists in a labor to systemically integrate imperialism upon the substructure of national financial capital. According to Lenin, a capitalist economy centralizes industry and banking, finance capital becomes exported, and nationalistic centers of capital compete for dominance. Ineluctably, productive forces are aligned on one side, and colonies of raw materials dominated by finance capital are situated on the other. War will only result as capitalist states are compelled to redress the fissure.

Several points argue against the dependency theorist. Marxists, with their idiosyncratic class theory of the state, miss the relationship between legitimacy and strategy of state power, reducing everything to economic power differentials. They focus on class struggle, supposedly the manifestation of economic "contradictions." This overlooks historic dynamics going back centuries that include constitutional, technological, economic, cultural, and legal changes that are not epiphenomenal precipitates of an economic base. In addition, nationalistic financial centers unleashing war upon another makes little sense now in an era where nation-states are becoming obsolete. In a world with weapons of mass destruction held by "virtual" states, mass immigration, environmental challenges, epidemiological concerns, and a vulnerable, privatized critical infrastructure, future war will be undertaken for reasons unrelated to capital export.

Lenin misses the development of the state which was occurring in his history. Under many state-nations, the state was the realization of the nation, its order, its will. James Madison writes in Federalist #63: "The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former." One thinks of more extreme examples, such as Rousseau's general will and Hegel's deification of the state as a living god. Napoleon was the apotheosis of the state-nation.

However, state-rights were challenged as national-rightists began to assert themselves. Bismarck's effort for unification is the most notable example. Americans are more familiar with the American Civil War. The United States changed from a Union to a Nation, as seen in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863. States eventually were deemed legitimate by how well they promoted the general welfare of a specific nation. This was legitimized at Versailles -- self-determination being most important -- the state taking care of the welfare of a nation, rather than the other way around. Most of Lenin's colonies are nation-states today. Such nationalistic loyalty will become increasingly challenged as market-states, with internationally floating finance capital, blossom into existence as more and more question the nationalistic paradigm, as seen by change in Western reaction to the four Yugoslav wars of the 1990's. Sovereignty was once opaque, particular to a nation. Now nationality is becoming irrelevant to human rights -- a basis for legitimacy, as crime and war become blurred.

As far as Lenin's historical scheme is concerned, several points can be noted. Capital flows from France went overwhelmingly to Russia where profits could be made during that period, not to her colonies. (Lenin dismisses this as mere government "loan" capital...) Some blame Britain for undermining Argentina's economy with capital investment -- but one forgets -- the favorite target for British capital in the 19th century was the United States of America. The current financial relationship between the U.S. and Japan has not brought upon imperialism. In addition, with the earlier Portuguese empire -- the cost of policing their empire was actually greater than the benefit of their far-flung gains, leading to its demise. Dutch imperialism faltered in the 18th century -- though Indonesia was retained until the 20th -- because her prosperity was based upon tight control of the Baltic. These are just a few of many examples that confront the dependency theorist.

Lastly, in the modern context, the price of raw materials has been falling worldwide for years. The prosperity of LDCs will become more and more contingent upon the intelligence of their workforce. Most colonial cold war conflicts were battles to the death over which form of nation-state was legitimate -- parliamentary, socialist, or fascist. Whether the "rather dead than red" style policies were ethical can be debated, but surely one can understand the urgency (or paranoia?) of the Americans in the 50s, with the Soviets with the bomb, China previously turning red, communists on the move in Indochina, Korea, Latin America, Africa, et cetera. Many American and Soviet-implemented horrors were strategic in basis, not economic.

This work is essential for those interested in Marxist theory. I cannot see how it is applicable to today's world, but for anyone seeking to understand the 20th century, particularly the viewpoint of one of its major actors, I'd recommend it.