Lenin CW-Vol. 23.pdf - From Marx to Mao

42V. I. LENINEconomically, that definition is absolutely worthless:instead of precise economic categories we get mere phrases.However, it is impossible to dwell on that now. The importantthing is that Kievsky proclaims imperialism to be a“foreign-policy system”.First, this is, essentially, a wrong repetition of Kautsky’swrong idea.Second, it is a purely political, and only political, definitionof imperialism. By defining imperialism as a “systemof policy” Kievsky wants to avoid the economic analysis hepromised to give when he declared that self-determinationwas “just as” unachievable, i.e., economically unachievableunder imperialism as labour money under commodity production!*In his controversy with the Lefts, Kautsky declared thatimperialism was “merely a system of foreign policy” (namely,annexation), and that it would be wrong to describe as imperialisma definite economic stage, or level, in the developmentof capitalism.Kautsky is wrong. Of course, it is not proper to argueabout words. You cannot prohibit the use of the “word”imperialism in this sense or any other. But if you wantto conduct a discussion you must define your termsprecisely.Economically, imperialism (or the “era” of finance capital—itis not a matter of words) is the highest stage in thedevelopment of capitalism, one in which production hasassumed such big, immense proportions that free competitiongives way to monopoly. That is the economic essence of imperialism.Monopoly manifests itself in trusts, syndicates, etc.,in the omnipotence of the giant banks, in the buying up ofraw material sources, etc., in the concentration of bankingcapital, etc. Everything hinges on economic monopoly.* Is Kievsky aware of the impolite word Marx used in reference tosuch “logical methods”? Without applying this impolite term to Kievsky,we nevertheless are obliged to remark that Marx described suchmethods as “fraudulent”: arbitrarily inserting precisely what is atissue, precisely what has to be proved, in defining a concept.We repeat, we do not apply Marx’s impolite expression to Kievsky.We merely disclose the source of his mistake. (In the manuscript thispassage is crossed out.—Ed.)