9. Critique of Imperialism¶
Core Argument¶
The critique of imperialism must begin by grasping how the ideology of the propertied classes becomes wholly subsumed under the logic of finance capital. The concentration of capital and its dense network of relationships ensure that the bourgeoisie supports imperialism unreservedly, while this ideology even penetrates the working class. Bourgeois scholars defend imperialism in veiled forms, obscuring its essential domination behind secondary details and proposing ridiculous reform schemes; cynical imperialists who admit reform is impossible are rarer. The fundamental question is whether imperialism’s basis can be reformed within capitalism.
Petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition arose in nearly all imperialist countries, but remained a pious wish because it shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism. Kautsky merged with this reformist opposition, deserting Marxism by advocating a reactionary ideal of peaceful democracy and free competition in the epoch of finance capital. His argument that trade with Egypt would have grown more without military occupation is meaningless: monopolies arise precisely from free competition, and once they exist, free competition has become impossible. Kautsky’s theory of “ultra-imperialism” merely repeats Hobson’s concept of “inter-imperialism” from 1902, serving to console the masses with hopes of permanent peace under capitalism and distract them from sharp antagonisms. Actual examples of inter-imperialist alliances, such as the powers’ attitude to China, show such alliances cannot eliminate friction, conflicts and struggle while the capitalist system remains intact.
Under capitalism, the division of spheres of influence can only be based on the participants’ relative economic, financial, and military strength. Since uneven development is inevitable, these strengths change constantly; Germany was insignificant compared to Britain half a century ago, and Japan compared to Russia. It is inconceivable that these relative strengths remain unchanged over ten or twenty years. Therefore, any inter-imperialist or ultra-imperialist alliance is merely a truce between wars. Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars and grow out of them, alternating forms of struggle on the same imperialist basis. Kautsky obscures this by separating peaceful alliances from the non-peaceful conflicts they produce, presenting a lifeless abstraction to reconcile workers to their leaders. Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and monopolies, which introduce domination and reaction everywhere, intensifying national oppression and annexations. Hilferding notes that imported capital into newly opened countries excites resistance from awakening nations, who seek national unity; European capital can only maintain domination by increasing military force. Kautsky’s critique obscures these contradictions, glosses over the impossibility of unity with opportunists, and avoids condemning specific annexations like Germany’s of Alsace-Lorraine. His analysis is irreconcilable with Marxism, striving to preserve unity with opportunism.