Introduction
The term ‘imperialism’ is often used by different scholars and theorists in varying perspectives to refer to a number of ideologies. In most cases, the concept is defined as a measure of expanding the power and influence of a given nation. The process is achieved through colonisation. It entails the use of military force or other means to suppress the host nations (Callari 1996). Some people use the term in a broad manner. They use it to describe a system of subordination and control. The network is organised around an imperial core and peripheral territories. From an economist’s point of view, imperialism is a normal attribute of a developed capitalist nation. It is a common feature of a state that is progressing towards monopolistic capitalism.
To form a clear and uncorrupted understanding of imperialism, one must be able to clearly distinguish between the concept and colonialism. Imperialism operates from the centre as a state policy. In addition, it is developed for ideological and financial reasons. On the other hand, colonialism is viewed as a form of development for settlement or commercial reasons. As such, one can say that imperialism includes some form of colonialism. However, colonialism itself does not automatically imply the presence of imperialism (Callari 1996). Many theories, such as those in political science, conservative thinking, liberal idealisms, and Marxist arguments, have been formulated to explain imperialism. Each of these theoretical frameworks explains a specific aspect of the concept.
In this paper, Marxist’s and Lenin’s theories of imperialism will be critically reviewed. A comparison between the two models is carried out to clearly bring out the similarities and differences between them. A case study of the Soviet Union is used to help the author in discussing the two theories.
An Analysis of Marxist Theory of Imperialism
Karl Marx sought to provide answers to a number of problems in the society. Such issues include the reasons why some people are rich, while others are poor. To address these problems, he made efforts to understand how the capitalist economy works. He sought to know the beneficiaries and victims of the system and how it arose from feudalism. In addition, he theorised on where the system was most likely to lead human society (Brewer 2001).
Karl Marx’s studies and theories mostly focus on the social and economic relations within which people earn their living (Arriggi 1994). The scholar thought past the capitalist laws into the struggle between the two main classes in the society. The clusters include the capitalists and the workers. The former owns the means of production. On their part, the latter have to work to survive. The analysis of the complex and developing relations between these two classes gave rise to Marxism. The new paradigm provides a critical analysis of political goals and action. It is clearly seen in the way Karl Marx portrays capitalism as an unsatisfactory system. In his theories, he expresses his desires to get rid of this economic way of life through any means possible. Such means include violent revolution and the establishment of a communist society (Brewer 2001). His theory brings out imperialism by highlighting the direct and indirect control that the capitalists have over the working class (Wait 2003).
Marx argues that the economic situation is a major determinant of other elements of the society. The arrangement is expressed through a form of production network. It impacts on social institutions and ideas, such as the system of law (Brewer 2001). In the process of developing his theory, Marx begins by arguing against the claims made by reformers. The reformers believe that simple alterations in ways of thinking can transform a society. However, Marx feels that dominant ideas emanate from material and economic developments. He then distinguishes the different types of societies during that time and how they relate with one another (Ehrenberg 1998). The main types of societal formations highlighted by Marx include primitive, slave, feudal, and capitalist arrangements (Wood 2003).
The major element in Marx’s theory is the analysis of the capitalist mode of production. In such a society, capitalists regulate productive resources. The resources include capital. On their part, workers only control their labour. They are under the capitalists. The capitalists then own the product and sell it at a profit (Campbell & Mommsen 1981). Marx creates a distinction between the value of a commodity and its use. He analyses the issue of the exchange value associated with a commodity (Cooper 2005). The scholar argues that the exchange value is explained and determined by the worth of labour. He then reviews the source of the surplus value, which a capitalist acquires from production. The value leads to increased growth of capitalism. He holds that at times, the value created in production exceeds the costs incurred. In such cases, surplus is realised. The ‘glut’ benefits the capitalist after they sell the product (Bowen & Semmel 1995). Continuity of this process is what leads to the growth of capitalism.
The growth of imperialism is brought out in Marx’s explanation of how different capitalists take control of their workforce to increase profits. According to him, once established, capitalism is sustained and propagated through innovation and competition (Doyle 1986). Marx makes a couple of predictions in his theory of imperialism. First, he foretells an increasing misery of the waged people. The misery will lead to a class struggle with the bourgeoisie, bringing about a communist revolution (Harvey 1964). According to Marx, the revolution was more likely to occur in England. Secondly, the theorist foresees the fall of capitalism. However, it is apparent that he never factored in the rise of imperialism. The reason is that when he was formulating his ideas, the imperialism had already set in.
According to Marx, capitalism had a bleak future. It could not possible change into imperialism. On the contrary, it is supposed to undergo internal contradiction and collapse (Harvey 1964). The capitalists are the ones who will unwittingly facilitate the ultimate destruction of the system. Each capitalist would seek to increase their profits by lowering the production cost through enhanced and efficient production (Wood 2003). The development then led to a rise in scale of production. The threshold of efficiency needed to overcome rivalry increases. As a result, the means of production will become centralised under the auspices of a few businesses. In extension, the ownership of these businesses is limited. They are controlled by a small number of capitalists in the society. According to Marx, one capitalist will end up killing the remaining ones. As a result, it will be easy to achieve expropriation using the masses (Wood 2003).
Analysis
Lenin came after Karl Marx. His popularity increased at the early stages of the First World War. His arrival initiated a new era of Marxism. At the time, Marxism was undergoing an internal crisis brought about by the development of competing factions (Heath & Lenin 1934). The core issue was the fact that history had unfolded in a very different manner compared to what Marx had envisaged.
Lenin’s theory was used to salvage Marxian economic thinking. It salvaged it from two of its major forecasts. The two were the increasing misery of the working class and the severe economic crisis that was expected to bring capitalism to an end (Heath & Lenin 1934). Lenin developed his theory under unique circumstances. At the time, the interaction between Europe and the periphery was at its highest. The interaction had started at the beginning of the second half of the 19th century (Ghosh & Patnaik 1987). The domestic market was undergoing significant transformations. For example, monopolies were increasingly controlling a large chunk of the capital available in the economy. The corporations were led by a few capitalists. Lenin theorised that these two developments were basically linked. Accumulation of resources in the hands of the few led to inequalities. The situation limited aggregate demand in the economy. As such, consumers were unable to absorb all the commodities produced. The situation led to reduced profits. The falling profits necessitated the creation of new regions of investment to increase opportunities (Heath & Lenin 1934).
Lenin assumed that the capitalist class controlled the state politically. Based on this, the scholar theorised that these individuals must have used the state machinery to colonise the periphery. Capitalists would then use the cheap oppressed labour to produce primary commodities and raw materials cheaply (Resnick & Wolff 2013). They then created an elite class of people in the periphery to consume expensive commodities imported from the new regions. Consequently, the imperialists were shipping the wealth of their territories into their local economies. The wealth from these countries solved the problem of fall in profits (Sweezy 1953). It is these set of circumstances that Lenin referred to as imperialism.
According to Lenin, imperialism has a number of significant implications on the socio-economic element of the society. One, surpluses allowed the development of labour nobility. The latter was a class of highly paid workers that were faithful to the capitalists. Lastly, competition between states in the imperial system increased levels of nationalism among the masses. The intensification deflected class struggle (Fletcher 1979). The nation state competition highlighted in this theory is seen in the tense relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. However, the two effects increased the power of the capitalists over the waged people.
The strategy envisaged by Lenin was strong enough to work in the short term. However, in the long run, Lenin believed that the approach would undermine imperialism and capitalism in their home nations. Nation state rivalry would lead to inter-imperial wars, which would weaken the core nations due to the financial drain and destruction of productive capacity (Ghosh & Patnaik 1987). Core nations would be weakened because of two major reasons. One, the losers would find themselves in an unfavourable position and with a diminished capacity to exploit the periphery. Two, the nationalist movements in the periphery and the anti-colonial wars would undermine the capacity of the victorious core nations to exploit the colonies (Ghosh & Patnaik 1987). Losing control over the territories was expected to affect the imperialist nations significantly. For example, their domestic influence would stagnate.
A Critique of Lenin’s Theory
There are numerous criticisms directed at Lenin’s theory. First, critics argue that the theory overlooks the deep-seated exploitative capitalist relations between the periphery and the core nations. The relationships existed for several hundred years before the imperialist phase, calling into question the claim that Lenin is describing something truly unique (Heath & Lenin 1934). What Lenin describes as a phase of colonisation is something else. It is an enhanced development of colonialism. According to critics, imperialism entails advanced colonialism. It is not a new phase of capitalist development (Wolff 2000). It is a fact that much of what Lenin predicted came to pass. However, capitalism was not undermined in the period that most closely resembles the condition he claimed would cause the core socialist revolution (Ghosh & Patnaik 1987).
A Comparison between Marxism and Leninism in Relation to Imperialism
Marxism is largely theoretical compared to other models. Lenin tried to incorporate these ideas into the real world (Sweezy 1953). In his attempt, he made adjustments to Marx’s way of thinking to make it work in Russia. One of the differences between these theories is the way through which they bring out the economic perspectives of the two scholars (Bronfenbrenner 1992). Lenin looked at economic matters in highly detailed way compared to Marx (Evans & Kautsky 1995). Marx had predicted that communist uprisings will occur in the developed capitalist economies. He never saw imperialism taking part in less developed nations. Lenin, on the other hand, implemented communism in Russia. At the time, the country was mainly a stagnant economy inhabited by peasant farmers. Economic and industrial development became the main task of Leninism (Ghosh & Patnaik 1987).
Another difference that is clearly seen in the two theories is the role played by politics in the society. Marx believed that the workers would instinctively develop class awareness and push for proletarian revolution (Marx 1996). Lenin did not believe such a scenario would occur. As a result, he took it upon himself to help in the formation of a political party that would inform the working classes and direct their efforts against the capitalism system (Callinicos 2009). He believed that it would take a well thought-out political party to break the workers away from the capitalist trade union mindset and turn them into a revolutionary state (Heath & Lenin 1934). Consequently, Lenin formed the Bolshevik political party. The party seized power in 1917.
Another difference between Lenin and Marx is seen in the way political parties were to be governed according to the two theories. In Marx’s theory of imperialism, dictatorship was ideally supposed to occur only in the working class (Marx 1996). On the other hand, Lenin came up with the notion of a party to promote the proletarian uprisings. The idea morphed into a centralised governing institution. The party would rule on behalf of the working class (Heath & Lenin 1934). It was assumed that the leaders of the party knew what was best for the working class (Arriggi 2007). Lastly, Lenin saw imperialism as the last development stage of capitalism. He also described a revolution through a union of workers and peasants under the leadership of a political party (Heath & Lenin 1934). Such thoughts contrast Marx’s theory. Marx only considered workers as the revolutionary force.
Application of Marx’s and Lenin’s Imperialist Theories: A Case Study of the Soviet Union
The term ‘Soviet empire’ is commonly used by critics of the Soviet Union to refer to the country’s perceived imperialist foreign policy during the cold war (Tokaev 1956). The nations said to be part of the empire were officially independent countries with separate governments (Kruger 1955). To some extent, the nations set their own rules, which had to remain within the limits set by the Soviet Union and enforced by the threat of intervention (Tokaev 1956). For a long time, the Soviet Union reaped the benefits of an imperialist nation. However, at the same time, the union maintained a socialist facade.
A popular instance of the soviet imperialism is seen in the union’s invasion of Hungary. The occupation came to a climax during the rebellion of the Hungarian people against what they saw as the government’s ‘rule run amuck’ (Sanborn 2014). At the time, Hungary was facing a number of challenges. They included food shortages, high prices, and social instabilities. The ethos of communism was totally opposite to the Hungarian belief structure (Tokaev 1956).
Communism was oppressive and downgrading to Hungarians. The idea of collectivism was not a welcoming concept. The idea of working for the benefit of the state, rather than for gratification of individual needs, irritated the people and pushed them to revolt. The Soviet practice of taking raw materials cheaply and selling the finished products back to the Hungarians at inflated prices was another cause of agitation (Sanborn 2014). Such factors, which amounted to imperialism, created tides of rebellions, which swept through the country. Many people were concerned about the ability of the Soviet Union to retain its control over Western Europe (Sanborn 2014).
The case study of Soviet Union has brought to fore various aspects of the theories promoted by Marx and Lenin. For instance, it is made clear that the capitalist nations use the various machineries at their disposal to increase the reach of their economies and exploit new opportunities (Hunt 1992). For instance, the Soviet Union’s military reacted harshly to the uprising. The reaction led to the death of over thirty thousand Hungarians.
Conclusion
Karl Marx and Lenin provided solid theories on imperialism. However, Marx did not address the issue of imperialism directly. In fact, he did not mention the word in his works. In spite of this, his theory carries as much weight as Lenin’s, who addressed the issue directly. In both theoretical frameworks, it is clear that countries feel the need to expand. Accumulation of property is the major force behind this desire. In fact, it is the very essence of capitalism. The need for nations to utilise the resources of other countries to achieve this accumulation process is discernible in all stages of capitalist development. The Soviet Union is a classic example of how the two theories work in real life. The case study highlights the factors that lead to imperialism. It paints a picture of Russia’s economy at that particular time.
References
Arriggi, G 1994, The long twentieth century, Verso Press, London.
Arriggi, G 2007, Adam Smith in Beijing, Verson Press, London.
Bowen, H & Semmel, B 1995, ‘The liberal ideal and the demons of empire: theories of imperialism from Adam Smith to Lenin’, The Economic History Review, vol. 48 no. 1, p. 212.
Brewer, A 2001, Marxist theory of imperialism, Routledge Press, London.
Bronfenbrenner, M 1992, ‘Marxist theories of imperialism’, History of Political Economy, vol. 24 no. 3, pp. 753-755.
Callari, A 1996, ‘Aronson’s Marxism is dead: long live Marxism’, Rethinking Marxism, vol. 9 no. 3, pp. 79-84.
Callinicos, A 2009, Imperialism and global political economy, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Campbell, J & Mommsen, W 1981, ‘Theories of imperialism’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 59 no. 4, p. 945.
Cooper, F 2005, Colonialism in question, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Doyle, M 1986, Empires, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Ehrenberg, J 1998, ‘Problems of Leninism. Historical Materialism, vol. 3 no. 1, pp. 65-72.
Evans, A & Kautsky, J 1995, ‘Marxism and Leninism, not Marxism-Leninism: an essay in the Sociology of Knowledge’, Russian Review, vol. 54 no. 1, p. 148.
Fletcher, R 1979, A revisionist looks at imperialism: Eduard Bernstein’s critique of imperialism and kolonialpolitik, 1900-14. Central European History, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 237-271.
Ghosh, J & Patnaik, P 1987, ‘Lenin and imperialism’, Social Scientist, vol. 15 no. 4/5, p. 122.
Harvey, D 1964, The new imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism, Progressive Publishers, Moscow.
Heath, J & Lenin, V 1934, ‘Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism’, Royal Institute of International Affairs, vol. 13 no. 3, p. 447.
Hunt, A 1992, ‘Can Marxism survive?’, Rethinking Marxism, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 45-63.
Imperialism & Colonialism. 1989. Anthropology News, 30(2), pp.20-20.
Kruger, D 1955, ‘Hobson, Lenin, and Schumpeter on imperialism’, Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 16 no. 2, p. 252.
Marx, K 1966, ‘The confessions of Karl Marx: reprint’, Mon. Rev., vol. 18 no. 4, p. 16.
Resnick, S & Wolff, R 2013, ‘Marxism’, Rethinking Marxism, vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 152-162.
Sanborn, J 2014, ‘Russian imperialism, 1914-2014: annexationist, adventurist, or anxious?’, Revolutionary Russia, vol. 27 no. 2, pp.92-108.
Sweezy, P 1953, ‘A Marxist view of imperialism’, Monthly Review Press, vol. 4 no. 11, p. 414.
Tokaev, G 1956, ‘Soviet imperialism’, Russian Review, vol. 15 no. 4, p. 289.
Wait, E 2003, Imperialism, Nova History Publications, New York.
Wolff, R 2000, ‘Marxism and democracy’, Rethinking Marxism, vol. 12 no. 1, pp. 112-122.
Wood, M 2003, Empires of capital, Verso Press, London.