Introduction
by V.I. Lenin
The importance and timeliness of the topic treated in the
work
of N. I. Bukharin require no particular elucidation. The
problem of imperialism
is
not only a most essential one, but, we may say
it is the most essential problem in that realm of economic
science which examines the
changing
forms of capitalism in recent times. Every one
interested not only in economics but in any sphere of
present-day social life must acquaint himself with the facts
relating to this problem, as presented by the author in such
detail
on
the basis of the latest available data. Needless
to say that there can be no concrete historical analysis of the
present war, if that analysis does not have for
its
basis a full understanding of the nature of
imperialism, both from its economic and political aspects.
Without this, it is impossible to approach an understanding of
the economic and diplomatic situation of the last decades, and
without such an understanding,
it
is ridiculous even to speak of forming a correct view on the war.
From the point of view of Marxism, which most clearly expresses
the requirements of modern science in general, one can only
smile at the "scientific" value of a method which Consists in
culling from diplomatic "documents" or from daily political
events only such isolated facts as would be pleasant and
convenient for the ruling classes of one country, and parading
this as a historic analysis of the war. Such is the case, for
instance, with
Plekhanov,
who parted ways with Marxism altogether when, instead of
analyzing the fundamental characteristics and tendencies of
imperialism as a system of the economic relations of modern
highly developed, mature, and over-ripe capitalism,
he
started angling after bits of facts to please the Purishkeviches
and the Milyukovs. Under such conditions the
scientific concept of imperialism is reduced to the level of a
cuss-word addressed to the
immediate
competitors, rivals, and opponents of the two
above-mentioned Russian imperialists, whose class basis is
entirely identical with that of their foreign rivals and
opponents. In these times of forsaken words, renounced
principles, overthrown world conceptions, abandoned resolutions
and solemn promises, one must not be surprised at that.
The scientific significance of N.I. Bukharin's work consists
particularly in this, that he examines the fundamental facts of
world economy relating to imperialism as a whole, as
a definite stage in the growth of most highly developed
capitalism. There had been an epoch of a comparatively
"peaceful capitalism," when it had overcome feudalism in the
advanced countries of Europe and was in a position to develop
comparatively tranquilly and harmoniously, "peacefully"
spreading over tremendous areas of still unoccupied lands, and
of countries not yet finally drawn into the capitalist vortex.
Of course, even in that epoch, marked approximately by the years
1871 and 1914, "peaceful" capitalism created conditions of life
that were very
far from being really peaceful both in the military and in a
general class sense. For nine-tenths of the population of
the advanced countries, for hundreds of millions of peoples in
the colonies and in the backward countries this epoch was not
one of
"peace" but of oppression, tortures, horrors
that seemed the more terrifying since they appeared to be
without end. This epoch has gone forever. It has been followed
by a new epoch, comparatively more impetuous, full of abrupt
changes, catastrophes, conflicts, an epoch that no longer
appears to the toiling masses as horror without end but is an
end full of horrors.
It is highly important to have in mind that this change was
caused by nothing but the direct development, growth,
continuation of the deep-seated
and fundamental tendencies of capitalism and production
of commodities in general. The growth of commodity exchange,
the growth of large-scale production are fundamental tendencies
observable for centuries throughout the whole world. At a
certain stage in the development of exchange, at a certain stage
in the growth of large-scale production, namely, at the stage
that was reached approximately at the end of the nineteenth and
the beginning of the twentieth centuries, commodity exchange had
created such :in internationalisation
of economic relations, and such an
internationalisation of capital, accompanied by
such a
vast increase in large-scale production, that free
competition began to be replaced by monopoly. The prevailing
types were no longer enterprises freely competing inside the
country and through intercourse between countries, but
monopoly alliances of entrepreneurs, trusts. The
typical ruler of the world became finance capital, a power that
is peculiarly mobile and flexible, peculiarly intertwined
at home and internationally, peculiarly devoid
of individuality and divorced from the immediate processes of
production, peculiarly easy to concentrate, a power that has
already made peculiarly large strides on the road of
concentration, so that literally several hundred billionaires
and millionaires hold in their hands the fate of the whole
world.
Reasoning theoretically and in the abstract, one may arrive at
the conclusion reached by Kautsky (who, like many others, has
parted ways with Marxism, but in a different manner), that the
time is not far off when those magnates of capital will unite
into one world trust which would replace the rivalries and the
struggle of nationally limited finance capital by
an internationally united finance capital. Such
a conclusion, however, is
just as abstract, simplified, and incorrect as
an analogous conclusion, arrived at by our "Struveists" and
"Economists" of the nineties of the last century. The latter,
proceeding from the progressive nature of capitalism, from its
inevitability, from its final victory in Russia, at times became
apologetic (worshipping capital, making peace agreements with
it, praising it instead of fighting it); at times became
non-political (i. e., rejected politics, or the importance of
politics, denied the probability of general political
convulsions, etc., this being the favourite error of the
"Economists"); at times even preached "strike" pure and simple
("general strike" to them was the apotheosis of the strike
movement; it was elevated to position where other forms of the
movement are forgotten or ignored; it was a salto mortale from
capitalism to its destruction by strikes alone). There are
indications that the undisputed progressiveness of capitalism,
compared with the semiphilistine "paradise" of free competition,
and the inevitability of imperialism with its final victory over
"peaceful" capital in the advanced countries of the world, may
at present lead to political and non-political errors and
misadventures no less numerous or varied.
Particularly as regards Kautsky,
his open break with Marxism has led him, not to
reject or forget politics, nor to skim over the numerous and
varied political conflicts, convulsions and transformations that
particularly characterise the imperialist epoch; nor to become
an apologist of imperialism; but to dream about a "peaceful
capitalism." "Peaceful" capitalism has been replaced by
unpeaceful, militant, catastrophic imperialism. This Kautsky is
compelled to admit, for he admitted it as early as 1909 in a
special work 2) in which he drew sound conclusions as a 'Marxist
for the last time. If it is thus impossible simply, directly,
and bluntly to dream of going from imperialism back to
"peaceful" capitalism, is it not possible to give those
essentially petty-bourgeois dreams the appearance of innocent
contemplation regarding "peaceful" ultra-imperialism? If the
name of ultra-imperialism
is given to an international unification of national (or,
more correctly, state bound) imperialisms which "would be able"
to eliminate the most unpleasant, the most disturbing and
distasteful conflicts such as wars, political convulsions, etc., which
the petty bourgeois is so much afraid of, then
why not turn away from the present epoch of imperialism that has
already arrived - the epoch that stares one in the face, that is
full of all sorts of conflicts and catastrophes? Why not turn to
innocent dreams of a comparatively peaceful, comparatively
conflictless, comparatively non-catastropbic ultra-imperialism?
And why not wave aside the "exacting" tasks that have been posed
by the epoch of imperialism now ruling in Europe? Why not turn
instead of dreaming that this epoch will perhaps soon be over,
that perhaps it will be followed by a. comparatively "peaceful"
epoch of ultra-imperialism which demands no such "sharp tactics"
Kautsky says directly that at any rate "such a new
[ultra-imperialist] phase of capitalism is thinkable. Whether,
however, it can be realised, to answer this question we have not
yet sufficient data." Neue Zeit, April 30, 1915, P. 144.)3)
In this tendency to evade the imperialism that is here and to
pass in dreams to an epoch
of "ultra-imperialism," of which we do not even
know whether it is realisable, there
is not a grain of Marxism. In this reasoning
Marxism is admitted for that "new phase of capitalism," the
realisability of which its inventor himself fails to vouch for,
whereas for the present, the existing phase of capitalism, he
offers us not Marxism, but a petty-bourgeois and deeply
reactionary tendency to soften contradictions. There was a time
when Kautsky promised to be a Marxist in the coming restless and
catastrophic epoch, which he was compelled to foresee and
definitely recognise when writing his work in 1909
about the coming war. Now, when it has become absolutely
clear that that epoch has arrived, Kautsky again only promises
to be a Marxist in the coming epoch of ultra-imperialism, of
which he
does not know whether it will arrive! In other
words, we have any number of his promises to be a Marxist some
time in another epoch, not under present conditions, not at this
moment. For
to-morrow we have Marxism on credit, Marxism as a promise,
Marxism deferred. For to-day we
have a petty-bourgeois opportunist theory - and
not only a theory - of softening contradictions. It is something
like the internationalism for export prevailing in our days
among ardent - ever so ardent! - internationalists and Marxists
who sympathise with every expression of internationalism in the
enemy's camp, anywhere but not at home, not among their allies;
who sympathise with democracy as as it remains a promise of
their allies; who sympathise the "self-determination of nations"
but not of those that are dependent upon the nation honoured by
the membership of the sympathiser - in a word, this is one of
the thousand and one varieties of hypocrisy prevailing in our
times.
Can one, however, deny that in the abstract a new phase of
capitalism to follow imperialism, namely, a phase of
ultra-imperialism, is "thinkable"? No. In the abstract one
can think of such a phase. In practice, however, he
who denies the sharp tasks of to-day in the name of dreams about
soft tasks of the future becomes an opportunist. Theoretically
it means to fail to base oneself on the developments now going
on in real life, to detach oneself from them in the name of
dreams. There is no doubt that the development
is going in the direction of a single world trust that will
swallow up all enterprises and all states without exception. But
the development in this direction is proceeding under such
stress, with such a tempo, with such contradictions, conflicts,
and convulsions-not only economical, but also political,
national, etc., etc.-that before a single world trust will be
reached, before the respective national finance capitals will
have formed a world union of "ultra-imperialism," imperialism
will inevitably explode, capitalism will turn into its opposite.