[Marxism] Imperialism

[Haines Brown]

> Haines Brown:
> 
> > I'm having trouble following this. The point about capitalism
> > being an objective process in which the capitalist is mere Träger
> > is obvious - so obvious that Lenin was obviously aware of it and
> > would unlikely fall into error.
> 
> The state exists to ensure the smoothest possible accumulation of
> capital, to mediate between sectoral interests, to act as guarantor
> for the interests of capital "as a whole".
> 
> This is incompatible with a perspective which sees the state as
> merely an instrument of the "monopolies".

Assuming you refer here to a supposed ideological difference between
Marx and Lenin, it makes me a bit uncomfortable. In Marxist terms, the
conventional difference between "government" and "state" is that
government addresses needs specific to the social whole (actually,
this is my own definition for politics, but that should make no
difference), and the state is an institution needed to stabilize a
society characterized by class contradiction.

If this conventional distinction between government and state is
acceptable, there's a couple of things we should note. A government
does not in principle have to resort to political force; a state in
principle _must_ do so. Secondly, government can be applied to a wide
variety of situations going beyond my definition of politics. For
example, professional sports might need a regulating body, and that
body represents a governance for that kind of activity.

Note that I have not mentioned the economy, but of course government
can try to regulate economic matters in a variety of ways, and the
state _must_ take economic action because we (Marxists) do not
separate political life, class and economy as autonomous spheres.

Now, why do I drag you through this little exercise? Well, you mention
three kinds of economic action that a (government or) state might
undertake. So, if my little introduction carries any weight, to decide
if it is a government or a state action, we must see whether it
addresses a society's socio-economic contractions.

A smooth accumulation of capital is clearly a government
function. It ensures a condition necessary for capitalism. Also
looking after the interests of capital as a whole, as you describe it,
is clearly a governing function.

But let's consider this "mediate between sectoral interests". Well, if
there is a socio-economic contradiction, _nothing_ can "mediate" it,
and so I infer you here are thinking of different economic interests
among capitalists. Am I correct? If so, then that would be another
function of the governing institution.

I don't know how to put my conclusion in a way that is not possibly
offensive. What you seem to offer is a bourgeois concept of that
economic whole in which there are no contradictions, and it therefore
can be regulated by economic governance (the government's economic
intervention).

The point is, how does this relate to a possible contrast between Marx
and Lenin? Several people, including myself, have suggested that Lenin
was speaking only of the development of capitalism, not a new stage in
history. I had assumed these comments put the issue to bed, but in
light of your remarks, perhaps I was wrong. Not sure, because I'm
uncertain of your point here.
  
> > Well, you might be right here, except that how one might define
> > stages is obviously an open question.
> 
> What I mean is that Lenin, who never made a complete break with
> Kautskyism, never left behind the classic perspective of the German
> Social Democracy which was his model and inspiration, that Marx's
> Capital is intended as a work of history, an account of the
> historical trajectory of English capitalism, rather than an abstract
> logical account of the laws of capitalism at its "ideal average".
> 
> The idea is that Marx's Capital was viewed as an account of a
> "competitive capitalism" which is no longer existing in the age of
> "imperialism".

OK, so you are saying that Lenin read Kapital as a work of history
rather than a general analysis of capitalist dynamics? Perhaps; I lack
the expertise to adopt a position on the issue.

However, I'm not much inclined to accept your framework as a matter of
principle. To put it crudely, it offers two worlds: the world as seen
in terms of historicism, and the world as seen in terms of
positivism. This is a classic dichotomy much debated over the years. I
can't say for sure that Marx and Lenin were not influenced by one pole
or the other of this intellectual contradiction, but what is important
for me is that _today_ it should no longer be an issue, or at least
for Marxists. 

This gets involved in some hairy argumentation, and so I don't want to
elaborate my point here beyond saying that general-law explanation has
fallen on hard times of late. We should be able to explain processes
in terms of concrete particulars without in the process loosing touch
with the abstract side (process theory; probabilistic causality;
scientific realism). I believe that Marx either represents such a
reconciliation or at least did so incipiently. Certainly such a
reconciliation has become conventional in the philosophy of science
since the late 90s. 

If there is any truth in this, then the question of a possible
Marx/Lenin contradiction becomes rather more complicated. From a
contemporary viewpoint, they could focus on particulars or on the
abstract without as a result entering into conflict with each
other. Also, if they are in fact caught on the horns of the conceptual
contradiction, it seems our job to let them gather dust in the attic
as we go about using the conceptual tools now available to us to
attain a better approach the the issues.

> But my main point with regard to the term "imperialism", is that it
> is never clear to me what individual speakers mean when they use the
> term.  Either it is intended in the sense used by Lenin, in which
> case it entails accepting a whole body of assertions whose truth is
> questionable ("monopoly capitalism", colonies as spaces for
> exporting capital, the bribery of the proletariat in the first
> world, the melting together of financial and industrial capital), or
> imperialism is simply an inflated, moralistic synonym for capitalist
> statecraft, an intellectual sounding way of stating that
> capitalist-nation states attempt to extend their power and
> influence, sometimes by military force.

If we assume that Lenin was historicist (which my instict is to deny),
then it does seem that his notion of imperialism would depend on or is
linked to a variety of other notions. Any notion, of course, is
questionable, and so a critique of one naturally puts to question the
others to which it is connected. But I don't see that such
interdependence necessarily invalidates the whole project (I assume
you intend only that the concept "monopoly capitalism" is open to
question, not that you know it to be invalid). A functionalist
approach that makes the adequacy of concept A depend on concept B may
have some for achieving a coherent concept of the whole, but I don't
see it as characteristic of Marxism, for which the whole is not
coherent, but contradictory.

Haines Brown