World Imperialism and Marxist Theory: On the International Line of the Communist Movement..............
The Leninist conception of imperialism, as painstakingly elucidated some seventy years ago, categorically refutes the facile notion that imperialism merely denotes the foreign policy of any particular nation-state; rather, it designates a determinate stage in the historical unfolding of the capitalist mode of production, a stage whose global ramifications are so self-evident that their explication is frequently deemed superfluous within contemporary discourse. Yet, the persistent and egregious misapplication of the term “imperialism” in much of present-day communist debate—most conspicuously by such forces as the Chinese Communist Party, which instrumentalizes the concept for factional rather than analytical ends—stands as irrefutable evidence that this ostensibly self-evident truth is, in practice, anything but universally apprehended. To comprehend the contours of contemporary world capitalism and its imperialist superstructure, it is imperative to grasp the dialectical dynamism inherent to the capitalist mode of production itself, a dynamism that manifests in a dual movement: the relentless internalization of capitalist relations within the nation-state, and the concomitant externalization of capital beyond national borders, thereby engendering a global system of exploitation and uneven development.
The first of these tendencies—the internalization of capitalist relations—entails the systematic subjugation or absorption of all obstacles to capital accumulation within the territorial confines of the nation-state, a process that is inextricably intertwined with the historical emergence of the nation itself. Lenin, in his prescient analysis, underscored the parallel trajectories of capitalist development and national consolidation, observing that the rise of capitalism and the rise of nations were mutually constitutive phenomena. This tendency, which might be described as the creation of a national market, operates to break down or assimilate all impediments to capitalist expansion, thereby consolidating the dominance of the bourgeoisie within the national sphere. Yet, this process is perpetually superseded by the second tendency—the externalization of capital, which drives the capitalist mode of production to transcend national boundaries and establish itself as a global system, internationalizing the relations of production and reproduction and thereby integrating the world into a single, albeit highly unequal, market.
The dialectical interplay of these two tendencies gives rise to a world system in which each national formation is both a site of internal class struggle and a nodal point within a broader international hierarchy. Within each nation, the economic, political, and ideological spheres become contested terrains wherein the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—and their respective allies—are fought out. Simultaneously, the global structure of imperialism assigns to each nation a specific role, dictated by its economic, political, and ideological characteristics: some function primarily as providers of raw materials, others as regional enforcers of imperialist interests, and still others as the hegemonic core of the system. This international hierarchy is not static but is itself the product of the uneven and combined development of capitalism, wherein the productive forces of certain nations are accelerated while those of others are stunted, thereby reproducing and exacerbating global inequalities and entrenching the dominance of the metropolitan bourgeoisie over both their own working classes and the proletariat of the global periphery.
The history of the twentieth century has been shaped by the dialectical interaction of two overarching processes: the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the national liberation movements, on the one hand, and the incessant struggle for hegemony within the imperialist system, on the other. The apex of this hierarchy is occupied by that social formation which, by virtue of its preponderance of economic power, military strength, and ideological influence, is best positioned to sustain and reproduce the system as a whole. In the present conjuncture, this role is indisputably occupied by the United States, whose dominance is underpinned by the scale and reach of its capital exports, the global hegemony of the dollar, and its unparalleled military-technological superiority.
It follows, then, that no nation can extricate itself from the structural imperatives of imperialism merely by altering its foreign policy or by realigning its allegiances among the great powers. As Charles Bettelheim has cogently argued, a country that remains enmeshed in the international capitalist division of labor will inexorably reproduce its own subordination, regardless of its rhetorical posture or political realignment. The only viable path to emancipation lies in a protracted and multifaceted struggle to transform not only the internal balance of class forces but also the nation’s position within the global hierarchy—a task that demands both theoretical clarity and revolutionary praxis.
The persistent invocation of “national imperialisms” in communist discourse—exemplified by the reductive dichotomization of “US imperialism” or “Soviet social-imperialism”—serves to obfuscate the systemic and international character of imperialism, reducing it to a binary contest between rival states rather than recognizing it as a complex, multivalent structure of exploitation and domination. While such terminology may have had tactical utility in the context of mass mobilization, its uncritical adoption into theoretical discourse has had a deleterious effect on Marxist analysis, substituting ideological sloganeering for scientific inquiry and thereby impeding the development of a coherent revolutionary strategy.
This theoretical regression is not without historical precedent. The origins of the “national imperialism” narrative can be traced to the interwar period, when the fusion of party and state apparatuses in the Soviet Union precipitated the ascendancy of a bureaucratic outlook that privileged state interests over the imperatives of class struggle. The resultant conflation of imperialism with the foreign policy of rival states was further entrenched by the practices of the Comin tern and its successor, the Cominform, which increasingly evaluated nations not by their internal class dynamics but by their alignment with or opposition to the Soviet Union. This tendency reached its apogee in the postwar period, as exemplified by Andrei Zhdanov’s dichotomization of the world into “imperialist” and “anti-imperialist” camps—a schema that reduced anti-imperialism to a question of foreign policy alignment and subordinated the class struggle to the imperatives of national unity and statecraft, thereby replicating the very economism and reformism that Lenin and Bukharin had sought to transcend.
WORDS TO BE NOTED-
1. Ramification
Meaning: A consequence or result, especially one that is complex or unwelcome; the act or process of branching out.
2. Internalization
Meaning: The process of making attitudes, behaviors, or ideas part of one’s own way of thinking; in social sciences, often used to describe how individuals or societies adopt certain norms or structures.
3. Concomitant
Meaning: Naturally accompanying or associated with something else.
4. Subjugation
Meaning: The act of bringing under control or domination; the process of making someone or something subordinate.
5. Constitutive
Meaning: Serving to form, compose, or make up something; essential or fundamental.
6. Proletariat
Meaning: The working class; in Marxist theory, the class of wage laborers who do not own the means of production and must sell their labor to survive.
7. Dialectical
Meaning: Relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions; in Marxist theory, a method of reasoning that emphasizes the process of contradiction and resolution, leading to the development of new forms.
8. Allegiances
Meaning: Loyalties, commitments, or support to a person, group, or cause.
9. Realignment
Meaning: The process of changing or adjusting one’s position, organization, or alliances.
10. Praxis
Meaning: The practical application or exercise of a theory; in Marxist theory, the unity of theory and practice, especially in revolutionary activity.
11. Regression
Meaning: A return to a former or less developed state; a decline or deterioration.
12. Comin tern
Meaning: The Communist International (1919–1943), an international organization founded by Lenin to coordinate the activities of communist parties worldwide.
13. Cominform
Meaning: The Communist Information Bureau (1947–1956), established by Stalin to coordinate the policies of communist parties in Eastern Europe and elsewhere after the dissolution of the Comin tern.
The passage explains that imperialism, according to Lenin, is not just a country’s aggressive foreign policy, but a special stage in the development of capitalism as a whole. The writer points out that even today, many people—including some communist groups—get this wrong and use the word “imperialism” in a confusing way. To really understand imperialism, we need to look at how capitalism works. Capitalism has two big tendencies: one is to spread and strengthen itself inside each country, and the other is to expand beyond national borders and become a worldwide system.
Inside each country, capitalism tries to create a strong national market and gets rid of anything that blocks its growth. At the same time, it also tries to reach out to other countries, creating a global market where some countries become powerful and others remain weak and dependent. This leads to an unequal world system where rich countries dominate poor ones, and each country has a specific role—like providing raw materials, acting as a regional police force, or being the main world leader.
The passage argues that simply changing a country’s foreign policy or picking different allies won’t break the power of imperialism, because the whole world is stuck in a system where the strong exploit the weak. Only a long and difficult struggle to change both the country’s internal class structure and its place in the world system can bring real change.
SOURCE-
Comments
Post a Comment