Imperialism, Chapter 8 “Imperialism is Parasitic and Decadent”
(1) Sharing meaningful content
- The deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly. This is monopoly of capitalism, meaning that this monopoly has grown from capitalism and exists within the general environment of capitalist, commodity production and competition, while often conflicting with this environment.
- In Britain, more and more land is no longer used for agriculture but has become a place for the rich to enjoy leisure activities. Every year, Britain spends 14 million pounds on horse racing and fox hunting alone.
- A trend of imperialism is to create privileged classes among workers, separating them from the broad masses of the proletariat.
(2) Reflections on this chapter
Monopoly capitalism developed from free competition capitalism. First, the anarchic production of capitalism causes disparities among “industrialists,” with some enterprises growing due to chance, increasing their labor productivity. Subsequently, the bourgeoisie uses this gap to strike against weaker bourgeoisie entities. The bourgeoisie relies on extreme individualism to get rich, which also involves attacking their own class. Ultimately, malicious competition among bourgeoisie (average profit) causes successive bourgeoisie to fall. They then leverage their strong labor productivity (organic composition) to produce large quantities of “good-quality, cheap” goods for huge profits. Additionally, they further expand the advantages of monopoly in reproduction, ultimately controlling social productivity development in the hands of a few, while the so-called “good-quality, cheap” goods gradually become more expensive. As Lenin said, “This is capitalism’s monopoly, meaning that this monopoly has grown from capitalism and exists within the general environment of capitalism, commodity production, and competition, while often conflicting with this environment.” When capitalism reaches the monopoly period, the socialized commodity production fully manifests the contradictions of commodities: value production becomes the sole social standard. After the bourgeoisie achieves complete victory, they use this foundation to react against the economic base, in other words, to establish dictatorship.
On the surface, various bourgeois ideological forms are expressed through different lifestyles. First, they openly promote bourgeois individualism, dominating social opinion.
Although bourgeois ideas influence people for a long time, it does not mean the proletariat consciousness is entirely lost. Modern industrial production unites various interests (secondary interests, since within this group, apart from strikebreakers and bourgeoisie, there are mainly contradictions among the people). The proletariat, along with poor peasants, are the main creators of social wealth, oppressed and exploited, and the most severely affected groups. They have long been exploited and bullied by bosses and thugs. Therefore, they especially hate exploiters and are willing to give up all their interests to overthrow capitalism. The bourgeoisie plays a role in superstructure and also in the economic base. Modern large-scale production has become increasingly distorted, cultivating a large number of parasitic “free-riders” who live by “cutting coupons,” indulging in leisure and wasting social wealth and resources due to their selfish individualism. The development of commodity value production into the monopoly period has not eliminated the contradictions between commodities and value; on the contrary, it has intensified them.
The continuous development of capitalism has increased the organic composition of capital, creating many unemployed. The relative impoverishment of capitalism leads to absolute poverty, making many workers unable to afford the products they produce and facing endless unemployment, resulting in monopolistic enterprises accumulating “huge stockpiles of goods” but unable to turn over. When capitalism reaches this stage, its reactionary face is fully exposed. The ruling class, to maintain the functioning of the state machinery and production, intensifies exploitation, making the lives of the proletariat in existing jobs increasingly difficult. As a result, widespread poverty prevents goods from circulating, leading to economic crises. Crises caused by financial and industrial monopoly capital further impact the state, leading to political and economic crises, and increasing the possibility of proletarian revolution victory. Because these crises are always borne by the masses, the contradictions may not be fully expressed during free competition, but in the era of consolidated monopoly, the crises are likely to expand, making capitalism’s development proportional to the severity of crises, and ultimately leading to its downfall. Additionally, as production materials are concentrated in the hands of a few, they accumulate vast wealth, which will eventually be exhausted. The depletion of basic reproductive wealth indicates that capitalism is not far from demise.
However, any reactionary force will make a frantic counterattack before death to seek survival. Slave owners and feudal landlords do this, and so do the bourgeoisie. They adopt “soft and hard” strategies: on one hand, they use the huge excess profits from colonies to buy off and divide their class enemies—the proletariat—making betrayal easier; on the other hand, they adopt openly reactionary policies—fascism, brutally suppress all workers’ movements, and buy off class enemies to stabilize power. But these are merely the bourgeoisie’s dying struggles.
(3) Questions
After reading this chapter, I have no questions.
Imperialism, Chapter 9 “Critique of Imperialism”
(1) Sharing meaningful content
- On one hand, a large amount of financial capital is concentrated in the hands of a few, forming a dense network of relationships and connections. This network not only controls many small and medium capitalists and owners but also the smallest capitalists and owners.
- The “universal” obsession with the prospects of imperialism, fiercely defending and beautifying imperialism—this is a hallmark of the contemporary era. The ideology of imperialism also infiltrates the working class.
- No matter how you interpret Kautsky’s assertions, there is nothing but reactionary tendencies and bourgeois reformism.
- The “allied” or “super” imperialist alliances, regardless of their form—whether one imperialist alliance opposes another or all imperialist powers form a grand alliance—are inevitably only “ceasefires” between two wars. Peace alliances prepare for war, and both grow from war. They mutually restrict each other, based on the world economy and politics of imperialist relations, alternating between peaceful and non-peaceful forms.
(2) Reflections on this chapter
The development of monopoly to today’s extent means that financial oligarchs “participate” in various enterprises, resulting in a “vast and dense network of relationships and connections, controlling not only many small and medium capitalists but also the smallest ones”.
From this, we can conclude that the entire bourgeoisie society during the consolidation of monopoly interests is basically unified, whether through collusion or so-called manipulation. As a result, the dominant ideology in society centers around the monopoly bourgeoisie, because their interests are aligned, whether they want it or not. This leads to some petty bourgeoisie and small capitalists “fervently” defending and beautifying imperialism, constantly manufacturing social opinion and buying off divisions, causing imperialist ideology to infiltrate the working class, all in the name of “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
(Partly excerpted from “Proletarian Revolution and Traitor Kautsky”)
Karl Kautsky’s political incompetence:
Kautsky first states:
“The opposition between two socialist factions (Bolsheviks and non-Bolsheviks)” is “the opposition between two fundamentally different methods, namely democratic and dictatorial methods.”
In fact, regarding democracy alone, the bourgeoisie vehemently denies democracy after seizing power. I wonder if Kautsky recalled the “Special Law” period, when the development of German political economy made the conflicts of Junker aristocrats and bourgeoisie temporarily secondary, while conflicts between Junkers, bourgeoisie, and proletariat rose to prominence. The weak compromise of the German bourgeoisie led to collusion with Junker aristocrats, ultimately forming a unity of interests. The burgeoning proletarian movement also forced them to unite. After German national unification, the Junker bourgeoisie eagerly wanted to suppress the burgeoning workers’ movement, issuing the “Law for the Suppression of Socialists,” but after relentless struggle by proletarian leaders Engels, Bebel, and the masses, Bismarck was ousted, and the law was repealed. The history of France is similar: the bourgeoisie colluded with landowners to betray the revolution, culminating in the victory of the Jacobins (Jacobin faction), but the fruits of the French Revolution were ultimately ended by Napoleon’s coup. The successive revolutions of 1848 and the Paris Commune (Third French Republic) further illustrate this issue. The bourgeoisie, as enemies of democracy, will not grant broad democratic rights. Only through revolution and revolutionary dictatorship can democracy be achieved. Yet, Kautsky states:
“Dictatorship means the elimination of democracy.”
In fact, we do not even know what he means by democracy. This vague notion of democracy, divorced from class, appears very abstract. On one hand, he does not understand democracy; on the other, he opposes dictatorship. This leads to his statement:
“Democratic methods and dictatorial methods” are fundamentally opposed."
Lenin also pointed out:
“This is a shocking theoretical confusion, a complete betrayal of Marxism. It must be said that Kautsky far surpasses Bernstein.”
Kautsky repeatedly claims that dictatorship means loss of democracy, and that dictatorship means dictatorship, and that the only way to achieve social revolution is through democratic means (general democracy). This reveals the astonishing low level of Kautsky’s theory.
He further states:
“Kautsky can only use such boring words to confuse and obscure the issue, because he raises questions from a liberal perspective, discussing only general democracy, avoiding the specific class concept. He desperately talks about “democracy before socialism” (from Lenin).”
Lenin sharply pointed out Kautsky’s problem: he avoids the role of class, calling “pure democracy” a lie used by liberals to deceive workers (from Lenin). Regarding the “proletarian dictatorship” that Kautsky claims to be “learned,” he must know what it truly means. Someone who can recite Marx’s works backward and forward even does not know what Marx said:
“Between capitalist society and communist society, there is a revolutionary transition period. Corresponding to this is a political transition period, during which the state can only be the dictatorship of the proletariat” (from Marx).
He also said:
“This socialism is the declaration of continuous revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, a necessary transitional stage to eliminate all class differences, produce relations that eliminate these differences, and change all ideas arising from these relations” (from Marx).
And:
“By transferring all means of labor to the producers, eliminating existing oppressive conditions, compelling every physically capable person to work for their own survival, we will eliminate the basis of class rule and class oppression” (from Marx).
And so on.
Marx repeatedly emphasized the importance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the “learned” Kautsky denounces:
“…but, in its original sense, this term naturally also means the dictatorship of one person without any legal constraints…” (from Kautsky)
It is so learned! So bourgeois! Lenin refuted this:
“The dictatorship of the proletariat is a government seized and maintained by the proletariat through violence against the bourgeoisie, and it is a government not bound by any law” (from Lenin).
Then Kautsky openly played clown, i.e., he equivocated, claiming that the “dictatorship” he refers to actually means despotism, and then he began to say, “Marx’s concept of class dictatorship is not its original meaning,” which is hilarious. He staged a clown act, but this is not without roots—because “confusion of thought leads to confusion of theory.”
Later, Kautsky said:
“Dictatorship does not mean revolutionary violence, but means peacefully obtaining a majority under bourgeois—note this adjective—“democratic” conditions.”
How can one “peacefully” obtain a “majority”? Is it by the bloody methods of the Paris Commune? Or through the death of tens of millions? Kautsky’s theory is so vulgar that it becomes anti-Marxist. He is not only ignorant of theory but also very ridiculous. In fact, Engels discussed that “the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, which is no less true under a democratic republic than under a monarchy.” The civilized Third French Republic continued to carry out long-term counter-revolutionary terror after suppressing the revolution, almost exterminating the entire Paris city. The civilized American republic ordered tanks to run over unemployed workers during the economic depression. The civilized British expelled indigenous peoples with bloody policies… so such universal suffrage can only be
“a measure of the maturity of the working class. In existing states, universal suffrage cannot and will never provide more” (from Engels).
Kautsky then said that management forms and state forms are also different, and he said:
“…Marx believed that Britain and America could carry out reforms peacefully, using democratic methods, which proves that he was not referring to management forms…”
From this point, he began to distort Marxism by talking nonsense about management forms and state forms. Engels had already warned the German Social Democratic Party not to trust parliamentary overthrow of capitalism, emphasizing that revolutionary methods are necessary. The bourgeois parliament might bring some benefits—“eight-hour workday,” “wage increases,” “strengthening women’s rights,” etc.—but cannot change ownership; it is only an “anesthetic” that relieves pain but does not eliminate the root problem. The revolutionary method is to cut through the rotten flesh with a sharp knife. Marx repeatedly discussed the importance of revolution and dictatorship, but Kautsky emphasized “peaceful” means to seize power. Lenin continued:
“Dictatorship is not a ‘management form’; you are talking nonsense. Marx was not talking about ‘management forms,’ but about the form or type of the state.”
Indeed, the only types of state are proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois dictatorship, but the forms of proletarian dictatorship can vary, such as a people’s republic or an alliance, which do not affect the essence of proletarian dictatorship.
“In short, Kautsky distorted the concept of proletarian dictatorship unprecedentedly, turning Marx into a vulgar liberal—meaning, Kautsky has degenerated into a liberal because only liberals would vulgarize the concept of ‘pure democracy,’ gloss over and erase the class content of bourgeois democracy, and fear revolutionary violence of the oppressed classes. Kautsky’s “explanation” of ‘proletarian revolutionary dictatorship’ turns the oppressed classes’ revolutionary violence into nothing, and he has set a world record in distorting Marx’s ideas into liberalism. Compared to traitor Bernstein, traitor Kautsky is a small figure” (from Lenin).
“So, no matter how you interpret Kautsky’s assertions, there is nothing but reactionary tendencies and bourgeois reformism.”
Kautsky is not only vulgar politically but also very vulgar economically. First, he does not understand the antagonism among imperialist monopoly bourgeoisie, foolishly claiming they form alliances to eliminate contradictions and achieve “super-imperialism.” Moreover, he advocates colonialism as a justification for imperialist policies. His “general democracy” theory is essentially reformist, aiming to reconcile labor and capital conflicts (discussed through democratic means) without mentioning the antagonism between labor and capital. He deceives the proletariat into believing in peace and discourages radicalism, using peaceful methods to solve problems. He also falsely claims:
“We (his so-called revolutionary camp) share interests with them,” and in the last world war, he advocated workers surrounding their homeland instead of overthrowing the existing regime, exposing his social-imperialist traitor policies.
This so-called “theorist” has transformed into a counter-revolutionary, not without roots. Capitalism, when it develops into imperialism, begins to cultivate large numbers of strikebreakers, bourgeois opportunists, and opportunists, long detached from the masses, who are bought off because their comfortable lives make them see revolution as unnecessary, regardless of economic crises, absolute impoverishment, or fierce class struggles. They have taken on the role of bourgeois priests and defenders, thoroughly turning against the revolution and revealing themselves as traitors.
(3) Questions
Regarding Lenin’s statement in “Proletarian Revolution and Traitor Kautsky” that “as democracy develops, the manipulation of the bourgeois parliament by bankers and financiers becomes more intense,” how should I think about this? I do not know whether the degree of bourgeois democracy is proportional to the reactionary degree, nor how it specifically manifests.
Imperialism, Chapter 10 “The Historical Position of Imperialism”
(1) Sharing meaningful content
First, monopoly arises from the growth of highly concentrated production.
Second, monopoly intensifies plundering of the most important raw material sources, especially in the main industrial sectors of capitalism, such as coal and steel, which are highly cartelized.
Third, monopoly grows from banking. Banks have transformed from ordinary intermediary enterprises into monopolists of financial capital.
Fourth, monopoly develops from colonial policies. Beyond the “old” motives of colonialism, financial capital has added motives such as competing for raw materials, capital export, “sphere of influence” (favorable trade, rent-seeking, monopoly profits), and general economic territories.
(2) Reflections on this chapter
The content has already been mentioned earlier, so I will not elaborate further.
(3) Questions
No questions for this chapter.
This concludes the “Imperialism” series.
