Lenin’s Capitalism, Imperialism, and War.
The previous critical review realized impartial analysis in which significant relations of the discussion were not brought out clearly. However, in this paper, such has been corrected through a critical examination of each case and how they relate to one another in the overall understanding of the review. Indeed, a critical analysis in which the relationship between imperialism, capitalism, and war is clearly illustrated.
Introduction
Apart from being known as a revolutionary leader of the Bolsheviks, Vladimir Lenin’s immense contribution to academia remains integral to date. A cadre of researchers has highlighted such contributions more robustly, especially on the view of capitalism. At the height of European territorial expansions, Lenin viewed such activities as the usual capitalist behavior geared into the realization of the maximum profits for specific people in the society and not everyone else (Lenin 1999, p.9). This review on Lenin’s ideology presents a critical analysis of how imperialism became broadened into a more extensive scope during colonialism in various parts of the world. Further, the exposition of modern jingoism is posited through the look into neoliberal practices continues the culture of capitalism. These effects often culminate in the war as a natural reaction to conditions set by capitalism. As such, this paper provides a critical analysis of the interwoven relationship between imperialism, capitalism, and war, as posited by Lenin in the contemporary world.
First and foremost, as a result of its territorial expansions and acquisition of new domains, many European countries engaged in capitalistic tendencies in a more imperial manner. A typical example is a case of Britain in South Africa (Gallagher & Robinson 1953, p. 13). The strategic location of Southern Africa proved pivotal for trade, especially from the southern hemisphere of the African continent. As such, by occupaying the area, it meant that the route to the East was secured from the competing European powers. As a result, Britain established the ports in the Boer republic, which saw the smooth transfer of raw materials into Europe. However, at the same time, the Boers were prevented from making economic value of the port except for the cheap labor they offered. In so doing, imperialist Britain created a sense of dependency on the Boers. With dependence comes domination and, therefore, the rule of both social and economic rights of the dominated lot. These existing gaps reaffirm the capitalist ideology of oppression of the subservient group as a factor of productions in the economy. Because of these suppressions, the dominated group often revolts from the long-term endurance of exploitation and degradation that often results in war. The Boer War between the imperial British is a typical example of such a case.
Next, during colonialism, the imperial powers were engaged in internal affairs of the colonized group in various dimensions. This was made much easier through the creation of a good relationship with the indigenous authorities of such communities. In many occasions that the colonized group would no afford to support many of their activities, the colonial powers would give both material and financial interventions (Gallagher &Robinson 1953, p. 4). In so doing, it ensured there is a created mutual good feeling that further strengthened the bond between the colonized and the colonizer. Strengthening the ties was essential in ensuring that imperialist interest is safeguarded, especially from other colonial competitors. This, however, comes with a hefty price from the colony. For instance, many colonial masters constructed the railway lines and roads into the interior parts of such countries to aid in developing a better infrastructure. However, at the same time, such railway lines and roads ensured there is free navigation into the interior parts of the countries in search of mineral resources and animal products. Those resources would later be transported to Europe for industrialization and economic growth yet at the same time leaving the colonized countries with depreciated resources. It’s was then to be seen as an exploitative capitalist method, and therefore many countries engaged in war and struggles for their liberation from imperial masters (Willoughby 1995, p. 322).
Moreover, Lenin emphasized the parasitic nature of imperialism by stressing on its appetite for the return back of profits from their colonies. In Latin America, specifically Argentina, the British ensured a tremendous trade success and profitability of the seaboards (Gallagher &Robinson 1953, p.9). This, however, was not the same feeling of the Argentinians who were exploited and were sabotaged economically. As a result, one can argue that for colonial Britain, the focus was on attaining profit from the investments that they had made and not necessarily on the wellbeing of the society. In realization of the above, there was a revolt of the Pampas people against further British expansion into other areas of the country. According to Lenin, the essence of capitalism is on profitability and obtaining surplus, which can then be reinvested in the colonial nation. However, the dissatisfaction of the working class with the bourgeoisie often results in war. The same way it occurred between the British and the Argentinians.
Accordingly, Lenin considers the rivalry that exists between the imperial countries as a result of the competition of the precious but scarce natural resources in their colonies to be causative of wars (Alavi 1964, p.105). The contention that exists between imperial power is a result of the greed of economic resources, which comes from the exploitation of the colonies. The acquisition of funds for continuity of production, future growth, and development of their economies becomes central to the realization of the capitalist goal. As such, to amass resources and get areas for investment of surplus production, the imperialist attempts to gain more and more colonies. For instance, towards the world war, the British had control of the majority of territories in different continents of the world than any other European power. This ensured that they were more resourcefully endowed and remained influential in world politics. With many colonies allied to her, the British served as a threat to other European powers like Germany with fewer colonies to control and, therefore, less influence. As a result, Germany, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, became interested in the acquisition of more territory in France and Russia among other countries. This resulted in the formation of alliances of “Allies” versus the “Central powers,” which served as a precursor to world war I. Thus, the development of imperialism creates a capitalist form of a dominant group versus the other inferior. And such constitutes rivalry, which results in conflicts.
Furthermore, the creation of structural adjustment programs has resulted in a capitalist profit-driven orientation from the initial use-value or the local market-centered reproduction. The liberalization of trade and the present trans-nationalization of various sectors like agriculture has seen the modern-day agricultural practices to be profit-oriented (Bello & Otero,2011, p.312). The lending by the world financial institutions like World Bank comes with an interest rate that must be met in settling such funding. As such, governments engage in intense export agricultural activities while giving less emphasis on the small-scale farming which peasants heavily relies on. In Mexico, for instance, the government interfered with the fertile lands in the countryside for the production of export crops to satisfy these structural adjustments. The desire to attain such modifications resulted in the erosion of the fertile rural lands, which was initially the source of income to the majority of peasants. This has so far created food insecurity, and economic crisis in Mexico as most productive lands were utilized mostly for a cash crop to fit into the neoliberal adjustment structures. With such a financial crisis, there are increased criminal activities, and civil unrest as working classes rises against the state to address the effects of capitalism tendencies.
Lastly, the concentration of banks has geared the world into monopoly capitalism, which is equal to imperialism. The collection of every sort of money from peasant and the working class into a shared pool of the capitalist group results in the eventual growth of these banks into strong financial monopolies (Lenin 1999, p.45). The development of these banks serves to control the masses in a critical manner that needs to be looked at. First, with monopolized capital, the people are put under control in terms of access and hindrance to credits. Also, the determination of their income and increase in their money is enabled. Through these strategies, the fate of the masses is clearly on the hand of the banking system predominantly owned by the dominant group or state (McDonough 1995, p.348). For instance, the state-owned banks will restrict access and, at the same time, facilitates its retrieval though hefty terms depending on various factors. With such restriction, the working class is put under suppression or stagnation by the dominant group (state) in an equal manner as the imperialist did in their colonies. Eventually, Lenin posits that such oppression results in revolt against the country by the subservient group and therefore results in conflicts.
To sum up, the imperialism as an ideology can be attributed to the capitalism practices because of the shared patterns exhibited by each of them. As Lenin posits, colonialism, the highest stage of capitalism, it makes sense with the prevailing circumstances that surrounded the era of imperialism and later imminent wars. However, many critics argue that the interpretation of capitalism, according to Lenin, focused on very few imperial powers to generalize all European nations as capitalist. Thus, there still a need for further research on the same.