by VALERIO ARCARY
“What criteria allow us to label a particular country as imperialist? What should be the rule for measuring each state’s place in the international system? Insisting on a defence of the ‘letter’ of Lenin’s work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, rather than on his method of analysis, would amount to stubborn dogmatism. There is much more Leninism in an update of his theory of imperialism than in the obtuse defence of his 1916 book.”
— Valério Arcary
It is never as easy to get lost as when one thinks they know the way.
Popular Chinese proverb
1.
From Lenin we inherited a theory concerning the nature of imperialism. It rested upon three distinct, divergent ideas, even as they were intertwined. The first was that imperialism marked a stage in capitalism’s unfolding, its pinnacle of development, signaling, in dialectical terms, both its zenith and the onset of its decline, or an age of revolution. In other words, a criterion of historical periodisation was stratified under the supremacy of the imperialist powers at the center, surrounded by a vast periphery of dominated nations, integrated to sharply unequal degrees, many colonies, some semi-colonies and very few independent countries, meaning a rigid and hierarchical international state system, that is a global order. The third was the constituing elements of an imperialist state as it existed in the twentieth century. In essence, a standard of measurement for determining the mode of incorporation into the world market and the position occupied within the international state system.
2.
These three ideas, articulated across distinct levels of abstraction, retain their full political and theoretical power. The most radical proposition maintained that modern imperialism ushered in an era in which capitalism reached its height even as it entered a phase of decay. It remains unassailable, having withstood the test of historical experience. The imperialist system led humanity into two calamitous world wars. The twentieth century was one of revolutions that uprooted capitalist domination in societies encompassing some 30% of humanity. The preservation of an imperialist order threatens humankind’s continued survival for no less than four compelling reasons: (1) the menace of new destructive economic crises like those of 1929 and 2008; (2) the looming catastrophe of global warming and the systemic incapacity of capitalism to effect an emergency energy transition; (3) the global arms race and the military intimidation by the Triad, notably the U.S., aimed to assert imperialist control over the world; (4) the rise of a neo-fascist, nationalist far-right that fights for power, overturning the democratic advances of the past three generations.
3.
Of course, Lenin was not a flawless prophet. His work established solid methodological foundations, yet his legacy fundamentally offered a conceptual framework for studying tendencies and counter-tendencies, not a millenarian doctrine. A good Marxist engages in prognostic assessment, but this should not be confused with mere fortune-telling. Nor one can escape the need to revise the other two theses. The world order is far from what it once was, having undergone qualitative transformations more than once and the standards for assessing what counts as an imperialist state have not remained intact. Over a hundred years later, both the world market and the state system have shifted. The structure of the imperialist order has evolved and become increasingly intricate.
Communis Press for more