Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Introduction
Anyone who grew up in the omnipotent internet, who can sense the difference between this or that rapper, and who considers the work of "t.A.T.u." girls and other squirrels-shooters-and-whiskers to be the height of intellect, can safely put this article aside and immerse themselves in exciting comics or light up a vape, exclaiming, "Oh, how cringeworthy, all this hate..."
Of course, this doesn't apply to those who are capable of critical thinking and approaching the problem not from the words of a popular blogger, but through serious study of the issue, drawing on the work of real scientists, and not from forums, popular talk shows, and similar platforms.
An overview of the problem of imperialism in the modern world is inseparable from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's key work, "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism." Naturally, Lenin wrote a number of other works devoted to the study of this social formation, but today we will examine modern capitalism based solely on this work. Despite the booklet's short length, this work offers a highly concentrated wealth of knowledge that modern young people (and not only them) would do well to study in more detail.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin rightly considered imperialism the highest stage of capitalism because it is at this stage that the most pronounced contradictions and tendencies of the capitalist system become apparent. Lenin's brilliant, genius mind calculated that capitalism could not develop further. At the same time, he pointed out that the specific timing of the end of this stage in human history could not be determined with certainty. And, unlike armchair experts or talk show hosts, he based his conclusions on the wealth of knowledge humanity had accumulated over its history. historyFor would-be critics, I advise you to familiarize yourself with the fact that, unlike you, Lenin always carefully studied the theses, arguments, and works not only of like-minded philosophers, writers, economists, and so on, but also of his ideological opponents.
Even before the revolution, he said that intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism. So let's follow his advice. Let's approach things with our minds, not with the forum.
Lenin's theory is based on a profound analysis of the economic and political changes that occurred in the European powers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The brevity of his work rests on a solid foundation of works by prominent economists and philosophers, preceded by an in-depth study of capitalism in Russia and other developed countries. One need only glance at the list of works he studied and drew upon in his work. I dare say that the aforementioned work can be considered the apotheosis of thought in this area. This in no way negates the fact that Lenin's theoretical legacy should not be subject to development. Lenin himself considered Marxism not a dogma, but a worldview that evolves and changes while preserving its core premises.
Now let's first examine the main characteristics of imperialism identified by Lenin in more detail. To do this, we simply need to recall the classic five characteristics of imperialism, applicable both to the late 19th and early 20th centuries and to modern society.
1. Concentration of production and formation of monopolies
Lenin noted that during the imperialist stage, capital is concentrated in the hands of a few monopolistic companies, displacing small and medium-sized businesses. Even in Japan, where the concept of preserving small and medium-sized businesses as a solid foundation for large oligarchic entities exists, virtually all even the slightest significant sectors of the economy are in the hands of a few owners who dictate their own rules of the game. And exactly the same process is currently unfolding in Russia, especially against the backdrop of a special military operation, when the closure of sales markets in Europe, the United States, and other countries forces companies to resort to more drastic measures to survive and prosper.
While competition played a key role in capitalism's advancement at its inception, it is now viewed as an undesirable element by large corporations. Each seeks to suppress competitors, no matter the means. Moreover, corporations and oligarchs often, if not always, resort to the state and the judicial system to legitimize their instincts. This process leads to a decline in competition and the strengthening of the oligarchy's power, allowing large owners—industrialists and bankers—to dictate their terms in the market and extract maximum profits.
And democracy, or, better to say, the semblance of democracy, serves only as a legal justification for all actions aimed at strengthening the power of the oligarchy.
2. Merger of industrial and banking capital
Without delving into economic theories that are not the subject of this article, we'll focus on the most important points. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were characterized by rapid industrial growth. Industrial development, the expansion of economic ties, and the export and import of goods required, and continue to require, immediate cash injections into production. But where to find the necessary capital? Not every corporation has the capacity to fully finance itself. Part of the costs, of course, are recouped from profits. But knowledge-intensive and labor-intensive industries require enormous amounts of capital. Financial institutions, not directly involved in production but possessing impressive reserves of funds, acquired in part by plundering colonies, began to enter the picture. The result was the emergence of what we now call financial capital. Banks, which had played a secondary role (not literally, of course!), began to play a key role in the economy, directing investment flows and determining company policies.
Complex and turbulent processes ultimately led to the merger of industrial capital and banking capital. Oligarchs and monopolies emerged, dictating policies based not on the interests of the nation, but solely on the interests of the monopoly. Finance capital became the primary instrument of control over the economy and politics at the international level. And since a nation (or nations) is limited in space, capital, having gained control of the state and the country, in its boundless passion for profit and only profit, begins to expand beyond the borders of the state. And this leads to the export of capital.
3. Capital outflow
While capitalism expanded in depth and breadth, subjugating the state, the nation, and the judicial system, and waging wars for territorial gains, its primary export was the export of goods. And the wars themselves were primarily fought for the exclusive right to export goods to a particular region of the globe.
But as soon as financial capital began to form, the emphasis gradually shifted to the export of capital. We know and understand that capital strives to increase its profits while reducing all costs. An economically developed country possesses highly skilled resources. And these resources demand more than just a token payment for their work. But the higher the worker's wage, the lower the profit! What to do? The answer is simple. Find a place where wages are minimal, production costs are lower than in the parent country, and the government of the chosen country is lenient towards incoming investment. As a result, the expansion of capital invested in foreign enterprises and projects has become the primary area for oligarchs to utilize their profits. By exporting capital, parent countries seek to exploit the cheap labor and raw materials of poor countries, securing superprofits for themselves.
And this law is universal. However, the export of capital, or, as it's fashionable to say now, investment, has a downside. Over time, a country exploited by capital becomes developed both economically and politically, which leads capital to rethink how to invest its resources. A striking modern example is China. Having begun by attracting capital and possessing cheap labor and significant natural resources, modern China has grown into a superpower and begun to invest itself, or, in other words, export capital.
4. International monopolistic capitalist unions are formed, dividing the world
Although the merger of monopolies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries occurred primarily within the borders of a single state, the prototypes of modern transnational corporations nevertheless began to emerge. TNCs directed direct investment primarily into the formation of colonial governance systems and the waging of expansionist wars, which guaranteed them access to raw materials. Companies also established overseas production branches to extract capital.
A striking example is the American company Singer. In 1867, it opened its first sewing machine factory in Scotland, instead of exporting finished products. By the early 20th century, the company owned a vast network of factories outside the US—in the UK, France, Russia, and other countries. This allowed it to capture approximately 80% of the global sewing machine market.
At the end of the 19th century, there were no international norms regulating the activities of transnational corporations. Regulation was exercised solely through national legislation and bilateral agreements. However, during this period, transnational corporations acquired legal personality, allowing them to operate as independent legal entities, enter into legal relations through agreements, and bear liability.
At the end of the 19th century, TNCs influenced the economies of both developing countries and those in colonies or under the influence of one state or another. It should be emphasized that TNCs contributed to the development of global economic ties, standardization, and the globalization of production. This, incidentally, can be considered progressive.
TNCs also invested in raw material extraction in the colonies and their processing in the home country (wasn't capital export a thing of the past?). The colonies provided such companies with a broad base for organizing production in both natural resources and cheap labor. These factors contributed to lower commodity prices and led to the expansion of economic influence. On a positive note, job creation through the opening of branches and subsidiaries improved the standard of living in the host countries. Of course, this didn't affect all segments of the population; living conditions remained largely the same, as a so-called labor aristocracy was essentially formed.
With the construction of enterprises and the organization of manufacturing and banking, technologies, solutions, and scientific discoveries began to be transferred between countries. This inevitably led to a slow but steady increase in the level of industrial development. And with the rise in production and capital investment, cities grew, and urban infrastructure was created and expanded. TNCs increased their production capacity and created new types of products, which had an overall positive impact on the economy.
However, the negative factors outweighed the positive aspects of transnational corporations. Since profit is the primary motivation and the primary goal of any capitalist, when dissatisfaction with oppressive labor conditions or state capture by foreign governments arose, these transnational corporations took every possible measure to suppress national movements or eliminate national competitors in the domestic market.
Considering themselves the bearers of civilization and the conquered countries and colonies second-class citizens, TNCs contributed to the emergence and growth of right-wing and far-right parties. Relying on the violence and unscrupulousness of these parties, and subsequently on governments formed by their leaders, such as in Germany in 1933, allowed TNCs to increase their profits not simply through production but by reducing labor costs in terms of wages, extending the workday, and other measures.
5. Economic division of the world.
The rapid growth of industry, the formation of monopolies, and scientific and technological progress inevitably led to a clash between the interests of the most developed countries. Local conflicts aimed at acquiring spheres of influence began to flare up. But the developed states lacked the strength to completely and unconditionally subjugate the entire world, and so the notorious economic division of the world occurred. Not yet by military means, but close to it. Military-political alliances began to form, whose goals were no longer singular, as had been the case, for example, during the Napoleonic Wars or the war of 1854. Now the alliances being formed pursued the goal of establishing global dominance.
While during the Age of Discovery, metropolitan powers sought simply to expand their colonial territories, in the 19th century, with the complete division of the globe, wars took on the character of a global repartition. As I noted earlier, no single state could possess the resources to completely conquer the world, and these wars were merely local. But the main difference between these wars was that they were not simply about seizing territory for the purpose of plunder, but rather about securing new markets. Capital exports, the growth of industrial production, and the struggle between monopolies inevitably pushed the governments of predatory states to wage wars in the interests of domestic capital, which felt constrained within national borders. Transnational corporations were only just beginning to emerge, so an economic, rather than military, repartition of the world was bound to lead to a political crisis, and then to its resolution through military means.
The same thing is happening today. Only the labels have changed, not the essence of imperialism. Governments bought by globalists decide who is right and who is wrong; who lives and who dies; which state should be the source of resources and cheap labor, and which will be the beneficiary.
Imperialism of our time
The development of imperialism exacerbates economic and political inequality between countries. Imperialist states use their military and financial might to establish favorable trade conditions and exploit the peoples of dependent countries. Thus, the rich become even richer, while the poor remain in a state of perpetual dependence.
Thus, Lenin saw imperialism as the logical outcome of the evolution of capitalism, when economic processes lead to the formation of powerful monopolies, financial control, the expansion of external aggression, and the deepening of social and political conflicts. These characteristics make imperialism the final phase of capitalism's development before the revolutionary crisis and the transition to a socialist society.
Before discussing imperialism today, let's look at the characteristics of imperialism described in Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's work and the characteristics of imperialism as they are understood today. Here's a table:
Should we consider Lenin's work outdated? Absolutely not! Lenin himself repeatedly emphasized that Marxism is not dogma, but a living movement that can and should be rethought, revised, and developed at certain stages. Rigidity in theory only leads to stagnation of thought and emasculates the very spirit of theory. Only dialectical development can bring life. And in this regard, Lenin's work is particularly relevant, for it shows how imperialism, genetically linked to early capitalism and, through it, feudalism, began to transform itself in response to external factors.
Everything in human history has its causes and connections. It's not always possible to identify them, but human experience shows that only under certain conditions can an event occur that dramatically changes the fate of a state or group of states. Therefore, those characteristics absent from Lenin's work—in particular, ideological pressure, the promotion of the values of one culture over others, and the shaping of public opinion through the media—were not included in the list of criteria for imperialism. They simply didn't exist.
But if we examine the characteristics of modern imperialism, we see a clear genetic link to those identified by Lenin. International corporations, large transnational companies that control a significant share of the global market, have begun to actively influence the economies of not just individual industries, but entire countries. All means of coercing obedience are being used: debt mechanisms, high-interest loans to developing countries, leading to debt slavery.
Those who do not want to bear the yoke are forced weaponsWars and conflicts have been virtually constant since the end of World War II. When there's no war, military intervention occurs under any pretext, be it protecting humanitarian missions, fighting terrorism, providing aid to those who uphold traditional Western values, combating communism, and so on. The range of reasons is broad. Sometimes they even resort to outright fraud, as happened in 2003, when Colin Powell, Hitler-style, shook a vial of tooth powder and, without batting an eye, declared it to be Saddam Hussein's chemical weapon.
All these actions are aimed at seizing natural resources and controlling territories. What was relevant in the late 19th century has not been lost in the current century. Capitalism, disguised as a champion of human rights, remains at heart a vile predator, ready to tear apart anyone who encroaches on the sacred right of private property. It does not spare even entire nations for this. The example of the former Ukraine is one of the clearest proofs of this thesis.
While at the end of the 19th century, the majority of the population had yet to experience the influence of the media, with the advancement of technology, information wars are now as widespread as trade wars. Manipulating public opinion through the media and social media, spreading false information, and promoting Western values have become commonplace. No one shies away from getting caught in a scandal; any amount of dirt is used to snatch a piece of the action. And when it comes to public policy, monopolies and oligarchy spare neither effort nor expense.
If manipulation of public opinion fails, and aggression against a country proves ineffective after a balance of power, other dirty tactics are employed. This includes sanctions, for example. Recalcitrant states are subject to economic and legal restrictions. These countries are shown that the West alone should be their master. The recalcitrant are offered a full package of hardships, and the government of the recalcitrant country is presented with an ultimatum. If it is not accepted, Western aggression relies on a coup d'état. This is the law of capitalism: strong predators devour the weak, and jackals, like Tabaqui from Kipling's tale, are left with the tasty bones. Spatial expansion has taken the form of a redistribution of property.
Sacred private property has taken hold of people's minds and souls; only a few find the strength to resist Mammon. The Lord said, "No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." But if you ask modern imperialists and their lackeys, you'll hear in response, "That's different!" Yes, times have changed, but the essence remains the same, only with new features. But the sheep's clothing a wolf dons doesn't change the wolf's essence in the least. He devours sheep, just as he has always devoured them. So too, imperialism, no matter how much it mutates, will remain essentially as Lenin described it.
Information