KAUTSKY, 1914 AND 1915 (ON IMPERIALISM, WAR, AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY) (original) (raw)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

NOTEBOOK “δ”

(“DELTA”)

KAUTSKY, 1914 AND 1915 (ON IMPERIALISM, WAR, AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY)

K. Kautsky, “_Imperialism_”, Die Neue Zeit, 1914, 2 (32nd year), p. 908 et seq. No. 21 (September 11, 1914).

((A note to the article says it was written before the war, for the Congress, and has been slightly altered.))

| | | | It is not uncommon now to “identify withimperialism all the phenomena of present-daycapitalism—cartels, protection, the dominationof the financiers, and colonial policy” (908).In that case we have “the flattest tautology”,in that case “imperialism is naturally a vitalnecessity for capitalism”[1] (908). | | - | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ? | | |

| | The term, he says, must be taken “not in thisgeneralised sense, but in its historical determi-nation” (909), as in Britain, i.e., “as a specialkind of political strivings”. “The British under-stand” (909) by imperialism the striving, on theone hand, to unite all parts of the empire withthe metropolis, and, on the other, to extend theempire.... | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ?Hobson! | | |

| “Imperialism is a product of highly developedindustrial capitalism. It consists in the strivingof every industrial capitalist nation to bringunder its control or to annex ever bigger areasof agrarian [Kautsky’s italics] territory, irre-spective of what nations inhabit them”[2] (909).... | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | no goodat all | | | | |

Further, he discusses the “production proportion” (heading of § 1) between agriculture and industry, between means of production and means of consumption.

§ 2: “Simple commodity production” (blather, old stuff).

§ 3: “Capitalist production”: capitalist industry requires that “the agricultural area serving it as supplier and purchaser” should “constantly expand” ((slipshod!)).

§ 4: “Accumulation and imperialism.”

The contradiction between industry and agriculture finds dual expression (917):

(1) over-production (in industry)....

(2) high costs (of raw materials and staple products)....

Imperialism was preceded by the “form” (striving for expansion) of free trade: “half-a-century ago it, too, was considered the last word in capitalism, as imperialism is today” (917)....

| Free trade helped develop other countries (theUnited States + Europe); their protectionist policy:in place of the division of labour between Britishindustry and the agriculture of all other countries,“they” (the other countries) “divided up the stillfree agrarian regions of the world among the bigindustrial countries, because these regions wereincapable of resistance. Britain reacted to this.That was the beginning of imperialism. | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | ---- | | | | | | N.B. | | | | | |

| “It was especially assisted by the system, whicharose simultaneously with it, of export of capitalto the agrarian regions” (918).... | | | ? | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | - |

Railways in the new countries—the development of trade—their protection by the state—the striving for annexations (+ preventing the development of industry in them)....

“These are the most important roots of imperialism which replaced free trade”....

“Does it constitute the last possible form of capitalist world policy, or is some other form still possible?”

One “aspect of imperialism”, that is “a vital necessity for capitalism”, viz.: domination over and subjugation of agricultural regions, the construction of railways, can be overcome “only through socialism” (920)....

There is, however, another aspect of imperialism: the struggle waged by states, armaments, war, the resistance of India, Islam and Eastern Asia, the resistance of the proletariat—all this impels “the capitalists of all countries to unite” (920)....

| ultra-impe-rialism[3] | | | | “From the purely economic point of view,therefore, it is not impossible that capitalismwill yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of thecartels to foreign policy, thephase of ultra-imperialism,against which, of course, we would have tofight as vigorously as against imperialism,although it will bring dangers in anotherdirection, not in that of an armaments raceand threats to world peace” (921).... | | ---------------------------------------- | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ha-ha | | | | | | | | | | |

| | This was written before the war. Austria’sconflict with Serbia “did not arise exclusivelyfrom imperialist tendencies” (922)—it has“just as much (ebenso) a nationalist” “as animperialist root” (922). True, he says, thereare “contradictions”, which imperialism creat-ed “between the other Great Powers”. Arma-ments might be increased and peace (afterthis war) will be only a truce. | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | !!ha-ha! | | | | | | | | |

| | “From the purely economic point of view, nothingany longer prevents this huge discharge of tension fromfinally resulting in the abolition of imperialism througha holy alliance of the imperialists” (922).... The moreprolonged the war and the exhaustion ..., the nearer weshall be to this solution.... | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | |

| | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Ibidem, p. _981_—in the article on “Effects of the War”—internationalism “does not exclude” “national feeling”and defence of the fatherland, but requires their recogni-tion “for each nation”; “in this sense” (sic!) the _Germans_and French voted the war credits. | | | | | |

p. _975_—ibidem—“our comrades” voted the war credits both to defend the fatherland and “liberate Russia from tsarism” (!!)....

| p. 974—“there should be an appeal to thestatesmen of the victorious countries to exercisemoderation” (thrice). | | | ha-ha! | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | ------ |

p. 846 (August 21, 1914)—an article “The War” (dated August 8, 1914)—ends with an appeal for “trust”, but not for “criticism”—“discipline in the Party”....

“Two Articles for Re-study” (1915, 2) § d: “The concept of imperialism.”

Opposing Cunow, he asserts that (Hilferding’s) “conclusions” about finance capital have been “unanimously [K. Kautsky’s italics] adopted by all socialist theoreticians”[4] (p. 107) (April 23, 1915).

Cunow equates imperialism with “modern capitalism” (109).

Kautsky rejects this. In Britain in the 1890s (110), imperialism meant the striving for a great Britain (110), for empire, “a special kind of _imperial policy_” (110. K. Kautsky’s italics)—colonies, protectionist policy.

| “It [“this new policy”] was termed imperi-alism by everyone” (N.B.) (ibidem). | | | ? | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | - |

| I was the “first” (he says) to study the “newimperialism” (Die Neue Zeit, 1897-98 (16, 1),“Old and New Colonial Policy”) and topoint to the export of capital, to the roleof the financial top stratum. Hilferding in1910 did not call this new phase of capital-ism “imperialism” (110-11). “He [Hilferding],too, uses the term ‘imperialism’ to mean a spe-cial kind of policy, and not a ‘phase of econ-omy’. Imperialism for him [= Hilferding] isa policy preferred by finance capital” (111).... | | | | | N.B.Die NeueZeit,1897-98,XVIthyear,Vol. Ievasion,arguingoverwords | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

We must draw this distinction: imperialism is not a “phase of economy”, but a special policy, like Manchesterism.[7] _We must distinguish between finance capital and imperialism_—“_its policy_” (111).

| | “Imperialism is a special kind of capitalistpolicy, as was also Manchesterism, which itreplaced. The latter, too, did not denote a defi-nite ‘phase of economy’, although it was _nec-essarily connected with such a phase_”(111).[5] | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | well,that’sit! | | |

| | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | Imperialism is the policy of the “economic phase”of finance capital!! Is that what you wanted? Petty-fogger and sophist, trickster,[8] twister—that’s whatyou are! You evade the essence of the matter. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

§ e) “the necessity of imperialism” (112 et seq.)

| | “That imperialism was inevitable and therefore nec-essary—no one will deny.... The debatable question iswhether it is necessary in the future”... (113). | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | |

And, further, the passages quoted by me in Kommunist[9] (pp. 144-45 and others[6])....

(ultra-imperialism is also possible ... etc. See Kommunist....)

Inter alia:

Kautsky: “Kiao-chow”, Die Neue Zeit XVI, 2(1898)—(No. 27, March 1898)—inter alia that the “policy of conquest” in China, etc.,

| ⎧⎪⎪⎨⎪⎪⎩ | sic!! | | | | “is not a progressive, but a reactionary policy,not a modern bourgeois policy, but part of anewly revived feudal-absolutist policy ... a reac-tion against Manchesterism.... Even from a moreadvanced bourgeois standpoint, it must becombated, just as we combat taxes on consumergoods, bonuses, narrow departmentalism, re-strictions on freedom of movement”, etc. (p. 25).... | | ------- | ----- | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | N.B. | | | | | |

N.B. Die Neue Zeit XV, 1 (1897). Lafargue, “Economic Functions of the Stock Exchange”.

N.B. 1915, 2 (33rd year), article on Gerhart Güttler’s book, The British Labour Party (Jena, 1914).

Notes

[1] Ibid , pp. 267-68.—Ed.

[2] Ibid., p. 268.—Ed.

[3] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 271.—Ed.

[4] Ibid., p. 289.—Ed.

[5] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 267.—Ed.

[6] Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 223-24.—Ed.

[7] Manchesterism (Free Trade)—a trend of bourgeois economic policy which advocated freedom of trade and non-interference by the state in private economic activity. It arose in England at the end of the eighteenth century; in the thirties and forties of the nineteenth century the main support of Free Trade came from the industrial bourgeoisie of Manchester; hence the Free Traders were also called Manchesterites. The Manchester school was headed by Cobden and Bright. Free Trade tendencies in the era prior to monopoly capitalism also struck root in Germany, France, Russia and other capitalist countries. Free Trade was theoretically substantiated in the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. p. 288

[8] Lenin calls Kautsky a sophist and trickster for distorting the true nature of imperialism, evading the issue and using sophistries and spurious theoretical arguments to gloss over the deep-seated contradictions of imperialism and justify unity with the apologists of capitalism, the avowed social-chauvinists. p. 268

[9] _Kommunist_—a magazine founded by Lenin and published by the editorial board of the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat jointly with G. L. Pyatakov and Yevgenia Bosh, who financed its publication. N. I. Bukharin was also a member of the editorial board. The only (double) issue, which appeared in September 1915, contained three articles by Lenin: “The Collapse of the Second International”, “The Voice of an Honest French Socialist” and “Imperialism and Socialism in Italy” (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 205-59, 349-56, 357-66).

Lenin drew up the plan for the magazine in the spring of 1915. He intended to make Kommunist an international organ of the Left Social-Democrats. However, serious disagreements soon arose between the editors of Sotsial-Demokrat and Bukharin, Pyatakov and Bosh, and became more acute after the first issue was published. In view of the anti-Party attitude of this group, the Sotsial-Demokrat editorial board, on Lenin’s proposal, decided that It was impossible to continue the magazine. p. 268

| | Works Index | | | Volume 39 | | | Collected Works | | | L.I.A. Index | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------- | | | < Backward | | Forward > | | | | | |