The Marxist theory of

imperialism1

Tom Kemp

The attempt of an older conservative school of historiography tobanish the term 'imperialism' from the scholar's vocabulary hasconspicuously failed. Whatever content is given to it, whether it isapproached with the intention of finding a general explanation or withan entirely sceptical attitude towards theory, there is now broadagreement that it embraces recognisable phenomena which have to beexplained. Since the term can no longer be brushed aside the need forgreater precision becomes more imperative. And therefore thechallenge of the Marxist, or Marxist-Leninist, theory—despite all thevicissitudes which Marxist theory has been subject to—makes itselffelt with renewed force. The debate has tended to shift to one aboutthis theory. More or less consciously, even in the academic havens ofthe Anglo-Saxon countries, work in this field, whether by historiansor by economists, is seeking to disprove, and more rarely to test orverify, what this theory asserts or is assumed to assert. The prevailingacademic orthodoxy is necessarily hostile to Marxism in thesecountries and is unlikely to be converted. But this is not necessarilytrue of younger scholars and students who are dissatisfied with thesubjectivism, idealism and ideological loading of most establishment

1. Within the space limitations laid down for this paper it is not possible to give an adequateexposition and defence of the Marxist theory of imperialism and to deal with its differentvariants. The reader is therefore referred to the same author's Theories of Imperialism (London,Dobson 1967) where some of the points considered here are dealt with more fully. The presentessay follows the lines of an earlier article which appeared in Labour Review, 7, no. 3, 1962 andin Partisans, no. 13, Dec. 1963-Jan. 1964.

16 Tom Kemp

scholarship and are aware of its inability to grasp or understand thereal processes at work in shaping our epoch. The interest in theproblem of imperialism shows that. What, then, does the Marxisttheory consist of?

1. Questions of method and interpretation

The Marxist theory of imperialism forms part of that theoreticalwhole known as Marxism which is grounded in dialectical material-ism, includes its own political economy and provides the tactics andstrategy of proletarian revolution. It has suffered from the vicissitudesof the Marxist movement in this century and particularly from therevisions and perversions of Stalinism.2 As a result those who claimto be Marxists today have serious differences about the theory ofimperialism, as about other aspects of theory and practice. Ratherthan deal with these differences, what follows will make the claimto be in the authentic Marxist tradition and will leave others to contestit if they please.

This being said it may be added, although the point is obviousenough, that the Marxist theory of imperialism was not devised as anaid to the study and writing of history as practised in the universities.It had, and still has, a definitely operational character as a guide topolicy-making and action. Nevertheless Marxists do study and writehistory and do claim that in skilled hands their method enables thehistorical record to be more fully understood.3 It is therefore necessaryat the outset to say something, however briefly and inadequately,

( about historical materialism.4 Marxism traces the dynamic of socialactivity and historical development to its roots in the production andreproduction of the means of existence. It is on the material base, itselfcontinually changing as men establish greater powers of control overtheir environment, that the superstructure of culture, institutions,laws and political systems arises. While these superstructural forcesmay and do assume an autonomy of their own and react upon the

V_material base they are, in the last analysis, referable to it. It should beemphasised that the materialist conception of history is not the crudekind of'economic' interpretation which it is sometimes assumed to beby ill-informed or dishonest critics. Nor does it see human develop-ment as the product of separable 'factors' of which the economic is

2. Theories of Imperialism, ch. vii passim.3. See the quotation from Franz Mehring in ibid., p. 10.4. Theories of Imperialism, pp. 8-15 and the references there cited.

The Marxist theory of imperialism 17

the determining one. It assumes the totality of human relationships,traces out their interrelationships and seeks the source of historicalchange not in motives, not in ideologies but in the material basis ofthe society in question. The study of imperialism thus begins with theeconomic structure and finds there the forces which set in motion'great masses, whole peoples and again whole classes of people in eachpeople', as Engels put it. For Marxism imperialism is not a politicalor ideological phenomenon but expresses the imperative necessitiesof advanced capitalism.

For Marxists, therefore, the explanation of such aspects of imperial-ism as colonial expansion and power struggles between states has to besought in material conditions rather than in ideology and politics. Thesubjective or psychological explanation of imperialism has been mostcogently expressed by Joseph Schumpeter—perhaps the only non-Marxist thinker to provide an all-embracing theory—but elements ofit pervade most, if not all, non-Marxist theories.5 While not denyingthe influence of forces which are mainly superstructural, the Marxist \y rejects the view that the course of history can be explained in

terms of power drives, love of war, desire for glory and the influence Iof outstanding personalities. In particular, it denies that the massive Jtechnological and economic forces of advanced capitalism have beensomehow geared to imperialist drives, contrary to their inherenttendencies, by statesmen, military leaders, aristocratic castes or evenwhole peoples. It begins with the capitalist mode of production in its^state of movement and sees what it defines as 'imperialism' as beingthe expression of the working out of its immanent laws. The complex-^ity of the forms in which these laws work themselves out, their inter-action with forces in the superstructure and the infinite variety ofactual historical situations make the task of actual historical explana-tion no less and in some ways more difficult for the Marxist historianthan for the non-Marxist.

2. What is imperialism?

The Marxist theory of imperialism sets out to explain the character-istics displayed by the capitalist mode of production in its latest, mostadvanced stage as a result of the working out of its 'laws of motion'discovered by Marx. It thus uses the term 'imperialism' in a technical

5. Ibid., ch. vi passim.

18 Tom Kemp

sense which has to be carefully distinguished from the variablemeaning attached to it by historians and others. For the latter itgenerally means principally or exclusively the relationship betweenthe advanced, imperial country and the colonial or semicolonial areasfalling within its formal or informal empire. The Marxist theory doesmore than this. It uses the term to describe a special stage of capitalistdevelopment and, by extension, it speaks of the epoch of imperialismin which this has become the dominant form and stresses the new,distinguishing features of this stage. Since it deals specifically withthe capitalist mode of production it is not concerned with a moregeneral and comprehensive theory of imperialism in a wider sense.If the same term is applied to other periods, or in a sense which iscloser to its etymological origins, there can be no objection inprinciple as long as the differences are made clear and confusionavoided.

Although Marx left no theory of imperialism, the analysis he madeof the capitalist mode of production provides the starting point for theMarxist-Leninist theory. In Capital Marx was at pains to show that thecapitalist mode of production was governed not by the satisfaction

^ of human needs but by the drive to extract surplus value from a classof wage-labourers, to realise this surplus value by finding a marketfor the commodities in which it was embodied and to capitalise thissurplus value in new means of production. The theory of imperialismdeals with the special phenomenal form which this process takes at aparticular stage in the development of the capitalist mode of produc-tion. Marx's own work in political economy required the construc-tion of a model of 'pure capitalism' at a relatively high level ofabstraction. The theory of imperialism, dealing as it must do with theactual working out of the 'laws of motion' which Marx discerned,tries to give greater concreteness to the way in which they haveexpressed themselves in history. Lenin, in particular, began with thenew developments in capitalism which had to be explained.

Those parts of Capital which are most relevant to explaining thenew stage of the capitalist mode of production, imperialism, are asfollows:

(a) the reproduction schemas in volume ii which deal with the problem ofhow the surplus value extracted from the working class is realised.We thus have what is known as 'the realisation problem', a problem ofmarkets, as well as that of the maintenance of the proportions betweenthe two main departments of production (that concerned with means

The Marxist theory of imperialism 19

of production and that concerned with means of consumption).Rosa Luxemburg was mainly preoccupied with these aspects.6(b) the tendency for the rate of profit to fall which follows from technicalchange which increases the proportion of constant to variable capital,of crystallised 'dead' labour to living labour, in other words bringingabout a rise in what Marx called the organic composition of capital.For Marx this law was a law of tendency: it was counteracted byother forces and by the efforts of capitalists to find ways of main-taining profitability despite the law. It is dealt with in the manuscriptswhich went into volume iii of Capital.(c) the concentration and centralisation of capital as an inevitable outcomeof the competitive struggle. This is referred to in volume i andreturned to more specifically in volume iii, where it is linked with thestructural changes in capitalism already visible and which were pre-paring the way for 'monopoly capitalism' as Marxists were later touse the term. See, for instance, Marx's observations on the rise of thebusiness company and the 'managers', the role of the stock exchangeand the banks. These trends are also dealt with briefly in Engel'sAnti-Duhring.

The component parts of Marx's analysis of capitalism were part ofan, albeit unfinished, model intended to reveal the 'laws of motion' ofthis mode of production in its whole development. Marx's method ofabstracting one aspect for close examination was a necessary part ofthis task. To build a theory on one part of the total structure, as RosaLuxemburg did with the reproduction schemas of volume ii, canlead to serious error. It is also necessary to be clear about the distinctionbetween the characteristics of the 'pure capitalism' of the model—e.g. the existence of only two classes, capitalists and workers—and thereal world which the theory ultimately has to explain. Thus, forexample, no amount of sophisticated analysis and model-buildingbased on Marx's schemes of reproduction can completely represent thedialectical and contradictory character of actual economic relationsin their specific, historically derived context. Account has to be takenof the character of the superstructure and its interaction with theeconomic base. This applies particularly to the national state, theform of governmental organisation within which the capitalist modeof production took shape.

The productive forces released by the capitalist mode of production

6. Theories of Imperialism, ch. iv passim.

20 Tom Kemp

could not be contained within the geographically confined areas of/ t h e old dynastic states of Europe. The rise of capitalism, and the

industrialisation of the advanced countries to which it led, broughtinto being a world market and an international division of labour. Itwas through their relationship with the world market that thenational capitalist states acquired their specific physiognomy and thatthe less developed areas, as they were brought into contact with the

j world market, assumed a position of dependence. By the end of thenineteenth century most of the world had been carved up intoempires and spheres of influence of the dominant powers. Apart fromthe countries of European settlement only Japan was able to developindependently on capitalist lines.

:At the same time, the bourgeoisie, the capitalist ruling class,ablished itself politically through the national state and thus there

grew up a system of states which embodied different national inter-ests. The state defined itself in the economic sphere through its ownlaws, monetary system, tariffs and restrictions on the movement of thefactors of production. There was, therefore, a contradiction betweenthe international unifying tendencies of the new technologies and theconstricting influence of the national state. This expressed itself inrivalries and tensions between the main powers, in colonial expansion,in alliances and preparations for war and finally in war itself. By theend of the nineteenth century, Marxism claims, the progressive roleof capitalism as a whole had come to an end: the epoch of imperialismhad begun.

Relations and conflicts between states provide much of the stuff ofpolitical history. In appearance political, diplomatic and militaryquestions predominated, and much of the historical writing aboutthe period after, say, 1870, pays little or no attention to the economicforces which were at work below the surface. At the same time, mostacademic economic history is written as though the outbreak of theFirst World War bore no relation to the subject matter of thediscipline.7 For Marxism this dichotomy is entirely unreal and springsfrom the fact that much 'academic study of modern history is ideo-

7. David S. Landes has dealt more realistically with Anglo-German rivalry and states than'In the reaction against Marxist slogans (sic} of "imperialist war" and "the last stage of capital-ism", scholars have leaned over backwards to expunge the slightest taint of economic deter-minism from their lucubrations. Yet doctrine was never a valid guide to knowledge, at eitherend of the ideological spectrum, and this effort to rule out material considerations as causes ofthe World War betrays naivftt or ignorance about the nature of power and the significance ofpower relations for the definition of national interests', The Cambridge Economic History ofEurope, vol. vi, Part i (Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965), p. 554.

so

The Marxist theory of imperialism 21

logically loaded. For the Marxist theory a connection clearly existsbetween the changes which took place in the structure of capitalismin the leading countries during the period after 1870 and the newforms of interstate rivalry and the carving up of the world intocolonial empires and spheres of influence which marked the begin-ning of the epoch of imperialism. It follows from the applicationofhistorical materialism that in their main direction the political trendsof the so-called 'new imperialism' expressed the working out ofeconomic laws and reflected the contradiction between the develop-ment of productive forces and the national state.

Returning then to the section of Marx's Capital which a«\there, the following brief points can be made. FirstfyJ-capitalistenterprises in the advanced countries sought to expand their markets(to realise surplus value) and keep up profits by pushing into theworld market. They did so, where possible, with the aid and supportof their governments and/or by using their own superior bargaining

trade with weaker partners, in obtaining concessions andecondly, other areas of the world were linked economically to

the centres of advanced industry, thus making possible the acquisitionon favourable terms of primary products which enterpeHnto theprocess of circulation, as variable and constant capftal^md thushelped to counteract the tendency for the rate of profit ts-£a!T 'Thirdly,this required the export of capital to undeveloped areas to build rail-ways and ports, opening up their interiors and thus bringing sections,of their economies into dependence on the world market. Fourtthese developments of the international division of labour, determinedby the needs of the advanced countries, were accompanied by andwere the expression of those structural changes— notably the growthof monopolies— whose beginnings had been noted by Marx andEngels but which had now become, or were becoming, the dominantforms of the capitalist mode of production in its highest stage. Thesecharacteristics, especially the fourth, were the starting point for Lenin'sanalysis of imperialism which will be examined later.

Numerous problems arise here which can only be touched on.They all depend on whether a connection can be established betweenon the one hand the politics of 'imperialism', its ideologies and col-onial expansion, and on the other the changes in the economic struc-ture which Marxists claim were, in the last analysis, the driving forcesin the new historical epoch. It may be admitted that to formulate thetheory appropriate to this stage in Marxist terms carries no convictionwith those who do not accept the same postulates. It remains difficult

22 Tom Kemp

to see what 'proof they require or would accept. Within the confinesof the present study, therefore, it seems best to proceed by makingclear what they have to refute.

3. Monopoly capitalism and imperialism

To take up the problem from a different angle, it can be said that mostnon-Marxists who employ the term 'imperialism' do so in a politicalrather than an economic sense.8 They mean the relationship establish-ed between the advanced metropolitan countries and their colonies,or they may extend it to include other dependencies, the 'informal'empire. As a consequence, some writers have concluded, somewhatdisingenuously, that with the end of colonial rule imperialism hascome to an end. The term is also sometimes used in a less precise wayto describe expansionist policies in all epochs and the political andmilitary subjection of some peoples by others. It may thus be claimedthat 'imperialism' begins with the rise of organised states engaged inconquest. Without contesting such usages in the proper context, ashas already been pointed out, the term, for Marxists, has a definitetechnical or scientific meaning. The Marxist theory, which uses it inthis sense, cannot therefore be refuted by importing into the discussionsome other meaning or, indeed, by juggling with definitions. Tocome to the point, then, Marxists mean by imperialism a special stagein the development of capitalism which began in the latter part of thenineteenth century and which defines the nature of the currentepoch of history. In Lenin's words: 'If it were necessary to give thebriefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say thatimperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism' (emphasis added).

By monopoly Marxists do not mean literally the occupation ofeach industry or branch of enterprise by a single firm. They use 'poly capitalism' to indicate the passage of capitalism from its earlierstage of more or less free competition to one in which giant firms,trusts and cartels dominate the market. -<•

Marx and Engels were among the first students of capitalisteconomy to recognise that the laws of the market themselves tendedto make competition between producers inherently unstable. AsMarx put it, 'One capitalist kills many'. They arrived at this conclusionnot from a study of actual market situations (which in their day werestill predominantly competitive), but from a combination of condi-

8. Theories of Imperialism, ch. viii for a review of some of these theories.

The Marxist theory of imperialism 23

tions—technical, economic, financial—which assisted the successfulcapitalist in increasing the size of the capital he employed and enabledhim to drive out or absorb his less successful rivals. By the processwhich Marx called centralisation of capital a smaller number of largecapitals tended to dominate the market in each field of business ('oligo- -x rspoly'). At the same time, by the process of concentration, separate ~individual capitals were amalgamated into larger units with the sameeffect (mergers, takeovers). These larger capitals made it possible toembark on the increasingly costly outlays required to set up in bus-iness at all where technology required a big initial expenditure onplant and machinery. The need for huge blocks of capital to start up a 0 *>business protected existing firms from new entrants. Further, the -^ •successful large-scale firm not only had larger amounts of its owncapital at its disposal but it was also able to acquire fresh moneycapital from the banks and the stock exchange on favourable terms.The whole process was indeed linked historically with the rise of jointstock companies and the growth of large deposit and investmentbanks and financial institutions which centralised the financialreserves of the system as a whole.

These trends, to which Marx and Engels had drawn attention insections of their writings which have a particularly modern ring,began to interest those professional economists with an institutionalapproach in Germany, the U.S.A. and other countries from aboutthe_endja£ the nineteenthxenUtty. Marxists began to take up the studyof actual developments and Hilferdlrlg, the most impressive writer onthe question, gave currency to the term,'finance capital' to describewhat was now becoming a dominant trend. Those economists whowere primarily concerned with market situations were slow torecognise what was new in these developments and continued untilthe 1930s to work on the assumption that there is perfect competition.

An important characteristic of the new trends was their unevennessbetween countries. They were most strongly marked in the industriallatecomers, and most of all in Germany. Marxists tended to generalisefrom these cases—as Lenin himself did—and on the basis of theconsiderable technical literature which had accumulated. In Britain,on the other hand, competitive individualism was still pronounced inindustry where old-established, family firms, well provided withcapital, resisted amalgamation. Industrial 'retardation' was accom-panied, in any case, by continued predominance in shipping, inter-national investment and financial services, and the possession of themajor world empire. The newcomers, leaping over several stages.

&

24 Tom Kemp

went more directly to modern forms of industrial-financial organisa-tion. They also came into conflict with entrenched British interests inmarkets and colonies. This was an aspect of what Marxists call the law.pf uneven ^development.

In the Marxist theory the expansionist drives of advanced capitalismare associated with the emergence of large amalgamations of capitalboth in the industrial form and in money form in the hands of banksand giant financial institutions. It was for these concerns, in particular,that the confines of the national market became too narrow. Aconspicuous part was played by the firms, most of them large-scale,

L which operated in heavy industry, producing means of productionand of destruction, whose growth invariably exceeded the limits ofthe internal market. Continuing accumulation and the maintenanceof profitability therefore demanded a large and growing market.Government contracts at home and abroad, such as arms orders andrailway concessions, became indispensable for such concerns. In thesame way, the big banks, assembling the spare funds of the investingpublic into ever larger blocs, sought new investment outlets—and notleast the profits of promotion itself—abroad and in the colonies.Divisions of opinion inevitably appeared within the capitalist class:some interests encouraged, others opposed these external drives,expressed in colonial expansion and in an active foreign policy.In particular colonialism had to show some prospect of returns to theinterests directly involved before business gave its support. Further-more, at first sight, the most active exponents of expansionism seemedto be flag-wagging nationalists drawn mainly from the middle classor headed by old-style patriots from the land-owning aristocracy.And in the cabinet room, as well as in the field, decisions had finally tobe made by politicians, proconsuls and military chiefs who had nodirect contact or necessary sympathy with the monopoly capitalists,the magnates of heavy industry and the bankers and stock-jobberswho personified the new forces of capitalism.

These complex historical situations undoubtedly pose difficultproblems in establishing the facts, working through the intercon-nections from the material base to the superstructure and detectingthe source of the dominating impulses in development. A wholesociological explanation is required which must reflect the greatcomplexity and variety of actual situations. The Marxist theory willobviously not convince its critics by assertions; but it is by no meansclear what 'proof these critics require. Further, it is when theyput forward their own alternative explanation or theory that their

The Marxist theory of imperialism 25

own weaknesses stand revealed. Their own position assumes, in mostcases, the predominance of just those ideological and political factorswhich Marxist would call the 'superstructural' forces.

Confronted with such situations, the Marxist theory holds fast toits starting point which lies in the analysis of changes in the materialbase as reflecting themselves, in however a complex and contradictoryway, in the superstructure. It seeks to trace out the origins of the newforces released by the capitalist mode of production in its develop-ment, forces which could not be contained within the old forms butwhich nevertheless, to some degree, had to operate through them. Thegrowth of monopoly and finance capital was irrepressible; capitalismcould not be fixed in its earlier competitive shape. The expansionistdrives which they generated within the national states carriedgovernment with them. Politicians, general staffs, ideologists, publicopinion, constituted so many interrelated layers reflecting differentpressures and interacting with each other in complex ways. Anenormous variety of patterns resulted from these crisscrossinginfluences.

The nub of the question is really this. Given the scope and power^of the technological and economic drives of advanced capitalism,represented by powerful firms and financial institutions which owned Iand controlled the main means of production, the sources of wealthand power, can it really seriously be maintained that the determiningand decisive role in world development was played by those forceswhich Marxists call superstructural? As a theoretical hypothesis, ̂judged in relation to the compelling power of the dynamics ofproduction, circulation and accumulation which govern the opera-tion of the capitalist mode of production, it seems most implausible.Properly and skilfully used, therefore, the Marxist method ofhistorical materialism is the most likely to provide an objectivelyvalid, scientific account of the epoch of imperialism.

In summary it can be said that in the countries of advanced capital-ism, those in which the structural changes characteristic of 'financecapital' and 'monopoly capitalism' were taking place, in which thepressure to find new markets and sources of raw materials, to open upwider investment fields, was building up, a keener interest began to betaken in an active foreign and colonial policy. Although colonies werestill being acquired and held for 'old' reasons, political and strategic,and were often economically disappointing, colonial expansion wasonly one part of the outward thrust in which the big banks and largescale industry in the advanced countries engaged. In doing so they

26 Tom Kemp w,.^^engaged their governments; or, indeed, governments may havetaken the lead in the hope that economic benefits would follow. Theprocess of expansion into the world market inevitably assumed aninternationally competitive character because of the national stateform in which the dominance of the bourgeoisie as a ruling classexpressed itself. It therefore took place beneath a cover of nationalismand patriotism; it found ideological spokesmen and involvedpoliticians and military men over whose words and decisions in-dustrial and financial interests did not necessarily exercise much, if

^any, control. On the surface politics and ideology ruled; deep downit was the imperative necessities of the capitalist mode of productionwhich exercised the determining role.

4. The contribution of LeninThe Marxist theory of imperialism derives not directly from Marx butfrom Lenin's application of Marx's method to a study of the economicand political developments which brought about the First WorldWar in his famous work Imperialism: the Highest stage of capitalism.9While other Marxists of his generation made important contributionsto the theory, it is undoubtedly to Lenin's work that supporters andcritics must alike turn if they wish to understand the nature of the

Marxist theory.The publication in recent years of the notes which Lenin made

while writing his book shows the wide range of material which heconsulted.10 Much of the literature he used was in German and wasabout developments in Germany, and that has undoubtedly left itsmark on the book. While it is true that British capitalism was stillresisting the trend towards 'monopoly capitalism' and 'finance capital',Lenin has been proved right in seeing what was happening in Germanyas typical of the direction in which all the capitalist countries were

moving.Lenin, it must be remembered, was not writing an academic treat-

9. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in 1916 with an eye to the tsarist censor-ship. Lenin wrote a new preface in 1920 in which he said that his aim was to present 'a compositepicture of the world capitalist system in its international relationships at the beginning of thetwentieth century—on the eve of the first world imperialist war'. There are innumerablestudies of this work and the centenery of Lenin's birth has produced a new crop of articles.See Theories of Imperialism, ch. v passim for a fuller discussion. Also the paper read by GeorgesLabica at the Algiers colloquium on imperialism in 1969 in La Pensec, no. 146, August 1969.10. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works (London, Lawrence & Wishart, 42 vols, 1969), vol. 39, Note-

books on Imperialism.

The Marxist theory of imperialism 27

ise but a tract for the times whose purpose was to explain to the inter-national socialist movement the nature of the forces which hadbrought about the war and, at the same time, the collapse of theSecond International. The events which followed its appearance,notably the Bolshevik Revolution, have ensured for the book anauthoritative place in Marxist literature and a status which would nodoubt have surprised Lenin himself in view of the limitations, imposedand self-imposed, on its scope.

When Lenin wrote Imperialism he was not thinking of it as the lastword on the subject. The reader will note that his claims are modestand carefully qualified. At the same time he was trying to characterisefully and yet succinctly, pedagogically so to speak, what he consideredto be the distinguishing features of the latest stage in capitalist develop-ment to which, following a growing practice, he gave the title'imperialism'. It is important to underline that for Lenin as for otherMarxists the term was used in a special, scientific sense. Lenin workedout his own definition in some detail and it is to this meaning and tonone other that the Marxist theory now generally refers.

In the first place Lenin combined the dominant tendencies incapitalism observable in a number of countries into a compositepicture of'monopoly capitalism'. This may be seen as a developmentand extension into a more finished conceptual form of those traitsabout which Marx and Engels had written some decades before whenthey first began to appear. Lenin stressed that monopoly capitalismwas a necessary outgrowth from the old style competitive capitalism,that it took over in a very uneven way and produced new antagonismsand contradictions. He associated these new forms of capitalism,arising within the nation-state, with the division of the world intoempires and spheres of economic influence and hence with the inter-national rivalries and tensions which had produced the war. He thusdrew together the principal economic and political trends of theperiod in order to define the nature of the epoch of imperialism.

A close reading of Imperialism will confirm that Lenin did not claimto have a completely worked out theory of imperialism. It should alsoshow that some of the objections to his theory are based upon amistaken idea of its intention and the claims he made for it. Lenin sawhis own contribution as part of a joint investigation with otherMarxists, notably with his own collaborators Zinoviev and Buk-harin, both to be victims of Stalin's purges.11 It is evident that he

11. Lenin wrote the preface for Bukharin's Imperialism and World Economy (1929) which laterfell into undeserved oblivion.

28 Tom Kemp

largely took for granted that his readers would be familiar withCapital and other Marxist classics. He did not consider at all thereproduction process, which had been at the core of Rosa Luxem-burg's celebrated work, and the 'realisation problem' arising from itto which he had made an important contribution in some of his ownearliest theoretical writings.12 As can be seen from the Notebooks,Lenin made an exhaustive empirical study of the latest structuralchanges in the advanced capitalist countries which showed the growthof monopolistic practices and the integration of industry with thebanks. He did not try to bring up to date Marx's model of the re-production process to take account of these changes, because this

/was no part of his purpose. It is implicit, however, that the phenomena' he investigated reflected the efforts of the capitalists to evade or ward

off the tendencies towards crisis inherent in the reproduction process:the need to realise surplus value, to preserve proportionality betweenthe different departments of production and to fight off the tendencyfor the rate of profit to fall.

From this point of view Lenin is concerned with effects rather thanwith causes and with the lessons which the socialist movement had todraw from the passage of capitalism into the monopoly stage. Accord-ing to him, 'Imperialism emerged as the development and directcontinuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism ingeneral'. In the course of defining imperialism he referred to thefollowing five basic features. Despite the fact that they are so oftenquoted it is worth returning to them, both in order to show thatLenin's theory of imperialism put the emphasis on the structuralchanges in capitalism rather than upon the relations between themetropolitan countries and their colonies, and to suggest that theystill accurately characterise the dominant features of capitalism

today.While drawing attention to 'the conditional and relative value of all

definitions, which can never include all the connections of a fullydeveloped phenomenon', his definition runs as follows:

(a) 'The concentration of production and capital has developed toi such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisivef part in economic life'. The evidence for the persistence of this trend is' overwhelming; few branches of economic activity have escaped it.

(b) 'The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the

12. See the first four volumes of his Collected Works where this is one of the major questions

taken up in his critique of the Narodniks.

The Marxist theory of imperialism 29

creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy.'While there is room for different interpretations of the relationshipbetween industry and the banks, and for discussion about wherecontrol really lies—this can only be settled by empirical enquiry—thedominant role of a recognisable 'financial oligarchy' can hardly bequestioned.(c) 'The export of capital as distinguished from the export of com-modities acquires exceptional importance.' Here again, the role of theexport of capital from the U.S.A. in particular has been of funda-mental importance in the development of capitalism in recentdecades. The controversy about the 'American challenge', theweakening of the dollar and the crisis in the international monetarysystem are bound up with this characteristic.(d) 'The formation of international monopolist capitalist combineswhich share the world among themselves.' The names of these giantcorporations will be familiar to any reader of the business pages ofthe press. Their increasingly dominant role has placed them at thecentre of presentday controversy.(e) Indeed, it is only about the last point, 'the territorial division of thewhole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed', thatthere can be serious argument. The old territorial empires of theEuropean capitalist states of which Lenin was thinking no longerexist. The United States, which displays the other characteristics of'imperialism' in the most advanced form, has never possessed coloniesof any importance. Instead, American imperialism rules over 'anempire without frontiers' which has no parallel in the past.

Lenin was himself cautious about this definition which, after afurther sixty years or so of turbulent history, is open to refinementand extension. But this will be to take in the new forms whichimperialism has assumed, not to change the essence of the matter.__What he called 'parasitic and decaying capitalism' has taken a lotlonger to die than he expected, not because of its inherent strengthbut as a consequence of the crisis of leadership in the socialist move-ment. In the meantime the antagonisms, contradictions and uneven-''ness of development which Lenin stressed as inseparable from theepoch of imperialism have manifested themselves to the full.

The fate of Lenin's work at the hands of the 'epigones' and thecriticisms made of it by opponents or revisers of Marxism wouldrequire more detailed treatment than can be accorded here. Atheory must be judged as a whole: to take passages from their contextand then claim that the point he makes has been invalidated, as

-r

«' •')

30 Tom Kemp

some critics do, does no damage to the essentials of Lenin's model.The attempt to belittle his contribution by emphasising his acknow-ledged debt to Hobson and Hilferding in particular hardly deservesattention. In any case Lenin's position was completely differentfrom that of the underconsumptionist, Hobson, and he had seriouspolitical differences with the Austrian school of Marxism to whichHilferding belonged.

Deriving its strength from the interpretation of much fresh(economic data, Lenin's work was not intended as a contribution\r to economics or to history. It sought to characterise the natureI of the epoch, define the tasks of the working-class movement and

isolate those false theories and leaders responsible for the betrayal of1̂ 1914. On the whole, however, Lenin was not concerned with the

I general repercussions of imperialism in the fields of ideology andpolitics. Nor, in his economic studies, did he deal with the reproduc-tion process and the realisation problem or investigate the connec-tion between imperialism and the tendency for the rate of profit tofall. These aspects are implicit rather than explicit. He did not examine

I' in detail the relationship between militarism and arms production andimperialism, which had interested Rosa Luxemburg. The question ofthe nature of the state under conditions of imperialism was to be takenup more fully in later writings. The fact that there has been littlespecialised Marxist study of such problems in the decades since thepublication of Imperialism means that there is a constant challenge nowto continue and carry forward the work begun by Lenin and hiscollaborators when they were obscure exiles in Switzerland in theearly part of the First World War of the imperialist epoch.

5. Imperialism today, The significance of Lenin's contribution lies in his ability to bring' together all the contradictory features of advanced capitalism undery a single head. He found the term 'imperialism' at hand to suit his^ purpose and it is difficult to see how he could have invented a better

\one. The Marxist theory of imperialism rests on this definition. It is, ofcourse, open to anyone to define and use the term 'imperialism' in someother sense or to show that Lenin was completely wrong or stands inneed of correction on this or that point. What is at issue, however, isnot the interpretation of certain episodes in history or merely theexplanation of colonial policy, but the appropriateness of the term todescribe a phase in the development of capitalism and of a whole

The Marxist theory of imperialism 31

historical epoch. Whether he had this point in mind or not, the anony-mous reviewer who said that 'imperfect as Lenin's diagnosis certainlywas, nobody has since really carried the argument any further on thetheoretical plane, whether by way of reinforcement or refutation' wasnot far from the truth.

In the epoch of imperialism the forces realeased by modem tech^xnology continue to beat against the constricting limits of the old state )forms which enshire the political dominance of the bourgeoisie and /preserve the social relations upon which it depends. The attempt toestablish a European Economic Community shows that the capitaliststhemselves now realise the limitations of the national state. Thecapitalist world market is increasingly dominated by a small number of j ,-fgiant firms closely interrelated with powerful financial institutions. \ "The intimate relations established between the big private corpora-tions, including those of a 'multinational' character, and the statemakes it increasingly difficult to tell where the sphere of privatecapital ends. The state is drawn directly into the arena, not merely todefend the general legal conditions for private ownership and com-modity production but also actively to assist the process of accumula-tion. The contradiction between the socialisation of production andthe private ownership of the means of production, and thus of thesocial surplus, becomes more manifest.

As a result of the Second World War great changes have takenplace in world capitalism.13 The leading position of the United Stateshas been reinforced; the imperialist world system now has its centrein North America. The forms of imperialist domination of thedependent countries have changed considerably. Direct rule hasalmost everywhere been abandoned: a strategic retreat but a retreatnonetheless. Part of the world has been closed to it. Over the 'FreeWorld' American imperialism exercises an uneasy dominance. Thegreat international corporations, mainly American, control theprincipal resources of this area of the globe. The demands of tech-nologically advanced industry cannot be met without combing theworld for raw materials.

Meanwhile, outside a few favoured areas poverty and hunger stalk \the world's millions, perhaps to a greater extent than ever before. I ~fr.

13. In this context such works as P. Jalee, The Pillage of the Third World (New York, Monthly 'Review Press, 1969) and L'Imperialisme en 1970 (Paris, Maspero, 1970), H. Magdoff, The Ageof Imperialism (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1969) and C. Julien, L'Empire American(Paris, 1968), despite their limitations and short-comings, indicate a revival of purportedlyMarxist studies of imperialism. What these works chiefly lack is a satisfactory theoretical basisand a tendency to remain at the level of surface impressions and empiricism.

;

/ 32 Tom Kemp

And, while material standards stagnate or deteriorate, the sense ofdeprivation spreads and intensifies. The politically independentstates of Latin America, Asia and Africa remained tied to the worldmarket in a position of economic dependence. There seems nopossibility of their following the same path to industrialisation as was

I ,, f taken, historically, by the presentday advanced countries. TheirVt I economic destinies are decided not by the politicians who may from' ' time to time struggle with insuperable problems but by giant foreign

corporations and banks and their native allies. The break up of the oldcolonial empires, the accession of dozens of new states to political

i independence, has changed the forms of imperialist domination much1 more than the substance. Large areas of the world, which lackI resources or potential for profitable investment and development by1 international capital, are condemned to stagnation and decline.A J American imperialism is only concerned with them so far as theyJjf may become breeding grounds for revolution and thus upset the

^F \s equilibrium with the Soviet bloc on which the mainten-J .̂c' \ance of its world military position depends.

^ All these and other features of contemporary imperialism offer achallenge to students of Marxism to develop and refine their theory totake account of a constantly changing situation. There is nothing tosuggest that the postwar developments undermine or contradict theMarxist theory of imperialism.14 On the contrary, they appear to offera striking confirmation of its essential critique of a world system whichhas turned the conquests of modern technology into frighteningmeans of mass destruction and condemns millions to poverty andslow death through malnutrition.

This statement of what the Marxist theory of imperialism en-deavours to do is necessarily no more than a beginning. It does not

\solve the type of problem in which the participants in an academicdiscussion of history or economic development will be mainlyinterested. The general validity of the theory will scarcely be accept-able to those who reject the claims of Marxism as a whole. In any caseit is the responsibility of Marxists themselves to test and develop thetheory in contact with concrete facts, historical and contemporary.The explanation of the nature of the epoch, the tracing out of theoperation of the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production,

14, There is no space here to deal with the crop of theorists, Strachey, Kidron, Barratt-Brownc( al (the spectrum is wide but the method similar) who claim that imperialism has come to anend or has changed fundamentally. Some of their views are dealt with in Theories oj Imperialism.The works quoted in the previous note are useful in opposing their pretensions.

The Marxist theory of imperialism 33

the extension and refinement of theory provide a continuous chal-lenge. The Marxist theory of imperialism is more than an indispens-able tool for the understanding of the course of world development in .our epoch. It is also part of a body of theory which is designed, I t iconsciously, to change the world : a practical task which requires thatit should become the theory of the only objectively revolutionaryclass in capitalist society, the proletariat or working class. Separatedfrom its striving to connect with the struggles of the exploited classand to raise its political consciousness until it becomes a class for itself,any part of Marxist theory will be seen merely as an interestingacademic concept or a piece of dogma with no further significance.

DISCUSSION

Eurocentricity? Kemp acknowledged that a great deal of explanatorywork on the workings of imperialism remained to be done, especially inrelation to the third world, since Lenin had viewed the question more or lessfrom the standpoint of the advanced countries. Some dissatisfaction wasnonetheless expressed about what was described by one questioner as the'eurocentricity' of the speaker's approach. This began an argument which --/reappeared in various ways throughout the series of seminars: most of the •elements of it first showed themselves in this discussion.

Third world theorists. There were four questions raised and discussed,all of which related in some way to the alleged eurocentricity of somepresentations of the Marxist theory. The first was the contribution to thetheory of imperialism made by writers and theorists in the third world(taken up more fully in the paper by Hodgkin below). Kemp felt doubtful ifFrantz Fanon, for instance, could be integrated into the mainstream ofLeninist theory, although one participant thought that Fanon's analysis ofthe political factor in the changing nature of imperial control, especially ofthe national bourgeoisie in the third world, was important. Kemp thoughtthat similar points had been made by Trotsky who had already seen the roleof imperialism in retarding the industrial progress of backward countries;Marx famous remark, that in the developed country the underdeveloped onecould see the image of its own future, was obsolete. The same developmentwas no longer possible.

Industrialisation under imperialism? This then was the second issueraised about imperialism from the standpoint of the third world: whether anindependent capitalist industrialisation was possible during the imperialistepoch. Throughout the seminar there was little disagreement on this ques-tion; it was generally agreed that the possibility was no longer open. (It ismore fully discussed by Sutcliffe below.)

Economic importance of the third world. There was more disagree-ment on the third issue. Kemp took issue with some professed Marxists who

34 Tom Kemp

claimed that the countries of the third world were no longer of great eco-nomic importance to imperialism. In response to a doubt expressed aboutthe severe temporal disjuncture between political control in the coloniesand the export of capital to them, he said that it was a fallacy to base analysis

imperialist relations on the balance of payments and the calculations ofprofit and loss. Profits are made by corporations and banks; but it may bethe taxpayer who foots the bill for imperialist annexation and control. Onespeaker added in support of this that an apparent fall in United Statesforeign investment in the third world, or the fact that there was negativeUnited States net investment in Latin America, might be illusory sinceinvestment out of retained profits often failed to appear in the availablefigures. (There is further discussion of these points in, Conclusion,section 4.)

How important are third world revolutions? The fourth question wasmore contentious: it was the role of third world revolutions in the struggleagainst capitalism and imperialism, an issue which emerged naturally fromthe others and from the general Marxist view that the purpose of analysingimperialism was to see how to end it. Kemp's position was that the crisisnow building up in imperialism has its centre in the advanced countries;hence they must be politically central. The people of the third world were infact suffering the consequences of the incompleteness of revolution in theadvanced countries. Third world struggles, he argues, are important but notdecisive.

China. This view was challenged by a number of participants. One dis-agreement centred on China where, it was argued, the peasantry had playeda dominant role in a socialist revolution based on a proletarian ideology.Kemp insisted that the peasantry was an amorphous class not capablealone of changing society in a socialist manner; in China the revolution hadbeen made by an alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry under theleadership of a party which had its origins in the urban areas; it had neithera peasant leadership nor a peasant strategy.

Vietnam. A second instance was Vietnam. One participant argued thatthe Vietnam war had seriously weakened the structure of American capi-talism. Kemp thought it of some importance but not decisive; it was arunning sore but not an intolerable burden. The war after all had coincidedwith a period of growth in the American economy.

India. On one country, India, there was more agreement. While stickingto his position that a condition of definitive success of third world revolutionwas the success of revolution in the advanced countries, Kemp acknowl-edged that India might have special significance. A large scale uprisingthere could be of such direct and immediate concern to imperialism that itmight produce a chain reaction in other third world countries, its impactspreading even to the advanced countries themselves.