Empire (41 page)

value, conflicts with the internalization ofthe noncapitalist environ-

ment, which satisfies the need to capitalize that realized surplus

value. Historically these two processes have often taken place in

sequence. A territory and population are first made accessible as an

outside for exchange and realization, and then subsequently brought

into the realm ofcapitalist production proper. The important point,

however, is that once a segment ofthe environment has been

‘‘civilized,’’ once it has been organically incorporated into the newly

expanded boundaries ofthe domain ofcapitalist production, it can

no longer be the outside necessary to realize capital’s surplus value.

In this sense, capitalization poses a barrier to realization and vice

versa; or better, internalization contradicts the reliance on the out-

side. Capital’s thirst must be quenched with new blood, and it must

continually seek new frontiers.

It is logical to assume that there would come a time when

these two moments ofthe cycle ofaccumulation, realization and

capitalization, come into direct conflict and undermine each other.

In the nineteenth century, the field for capitalist expansion (in

material resources, labor power, and markets) seemed to stretch

indefinitely, both in Europe and elsewhere. In Marx’s time, capitalist

production accounted for very little of global production. Only a

few countries had substantial capitalist production (England, France,

228

P A S S A G E S O F P R O D U C T I O N

and Germany), and even these countries still had large segments of

noncapitalist production—peasant-based agriculture, artisanal pro-

duction, and so forth. Luxemburg argues, however, that since the

earth is finite, the logical conflict will eventually become a real

contradiction: ‘‘The more violently, ruthlessly and thoroughly im-

perialism brings about the decline ofnon-capitalist civilisations, the

more rapidly it cuts the ground from under the feet of capitalist

accumulation. Though imperialism is the historical method for

prolonging the career ofcapitalism, it is also the sure means of

bringing it to a swift conclusion.’’16 This contradictory tension is

present throughout the development ofcapital, but it is revealed

in full view only at the limit, at the point of crisis—when capital

is faced with the finitude of humanity and the earth. Here the great

imperialist Cecil Rhodes appears as the paradigmatic capitalist. The

spaces ofthe globe are closing up and capital’s imperialist expansion

is confronting its limits. Rhodes, ever the adventurer, gazes wistfully

and yearningly at the stars above, frustrated by the cruel temptation

of those new frontiers, so close and yet so far.

Even though their critiques ofimperialism and capitalist expan-

sion are often presented in strictly quantitative, economic terms,

the stakes for Marxist theorists are primarily
political.
This does not mean that the economic calculations (and the critiques ofthem)

should not be taken seriously; it means, rather, that the economic

relationships must be considered as they are really articulated in the

historical and social context, as part ofpolitical relations ofrule and

domination.17 The most important political stake for these authors

in the question ofeconomic expansion is to demonstrate the ineluc-

table relationship between capitalism and imperialism. Ifcapitalism

and imperialism are essentially related, the logic goes, then any

struggle against imperialism (and the wars, misery, impoverishment,

and enslavement that follow from it) must also be a direct struggle

against capitalism. Any political strategy aimed at reforming the

contemporary configuration ofcapitalism to make it nonimperialist

is vain and naive because the core ofcapitalist reproduction and

accumulation necessarily implies imperialist expansion. Capital can-

T H E L I M I T S O F I M P E R I A L I S M

229

not behave otherwise—this is its nature. The evils ofimperialism

cannot be confronted except by destroying capitalism itself.

Equalization and Subsumption

Lenin’s book on imperialism is cast primarily as a synthesis ofthe

analyses ofother authors to make them accessible to a wide public.18

Lenin’s text, however, also makes its own original contributions,

the most important ofwhich is to pose the critique ofimperialism

from the subjective standpoint and thus link it to the Marxist notion

ofthe revolutionary potential ofcrises. He gave us a toolbox, a set

ofmachines for the production ofanti-imperialist subjectivity.

Lenin often presents his arguments by way of polemic. His

analysis ofimperialism is articulated primarily by challenging the

theses ofRudolfHilferding and Karl Kautsky. In order to develop

his critiques, however, Lenin considered carefully, and at times

assumed as his own, the theoretical assumptions ofboth these au-

thors. Most important, Lenin adopted Hilferding’s fundamental

thesis that as capital expands through the imperialist construction

ofthe world market, there emerge ever greater obstacles to the

Ausgleichung
(the equalization) ofrates ofprofit among various

branches and sectors ofproduction. Peaceful capitalist development,

however, depends on at least a tendency toward equalized economic

conditions: equal prices for equal commodities, equal profit for

equal capital, equal wages and equal exploitation for equal work,

and so forth. Hilferding recognized that imperialism—which struc-

tures the nations and territories ofcapitalist development in an ever

more rigid way and assigns authority to national monopolies—

impedes the formation ofan equalized rate ofprofit and thus under-

mines the possibility ofa successful capitalist mediation ofinterna-

tional development.19 In effect, the domination and division of the

world market by monopolies had made the process ofequalization

virtually impossible. Only ifthe national central banks were to

intervene, or better, ifa unified international bank were to inter-

vene, could this contradiction, which portends both trade wars and

fighting wars, be equalized and placated. In short, Lenin adopted

230

P A S S A G E S O F P R O D U C T I O N

Hilferding’s hypothesis that capital had entered a new phase of

international development defined by monopoly and that this led

to both an increase ofcontradictions and a crisis ofequalization.

He did not accept, however, that the utopia ofa unified international

bank could be taken seriously and that a still capitalist
Aufhebung

(subsumption) ofthe crisis could ever come about.

Lenin regarded the position ofKautsky, who also took Hilferd-

ing’s work as his point ofdeparture, as even more utopian and

damaging. Kautsky proposed, in effect, that capitalism could achieve

a real political and economic unification ofthe world market. The

violent conflicts of imperialism could be followed by a new peaceful

phase ofcapitalism, an ‘‘ultra-imperialist’’ phase. The magnates of

capital could unite in a single world trust, substituting an internation-

ally united finance capital for the competition and struggle between

nationally based finance capitals. We can thus imagine a phase

in the future, he claimed, in which capital achieves a peaceful

subsumption and resolution in which not a unified bank but market

forces and monopolies more or less regulated by states could succeed

somehow in determining the global equalization ofthe rate of

profit.20 Lenin agreed with Kautsky’s basic thesis that there is a

trend in capitalist development toward the international cooperation

ofthe various national finance capitals and possibly toward the

construction ofa single world trust. What he objected to so strongly

was the fact that Kautsky used this vision of a peaceful future to

negate the dynamics ofthe present reality; Lenin thus denounced

his ‘‘profoundly reactionary desire to blunt the contradictions’’ of

the present situation.21 Rather than waiting for some peaceful ultra-

imperialism to arrive in the future, revolutionaries should act now on

the contradictions posed by capital’s present imperialist organization.

Thus, while generally adopting these authors’ analytical propo-

sitions, Lenin rejected their political positions. Although he funda-

mentally agreed with Hilferding’s analysis of the tendency toward

a world market dominated by monopolies, he denied that such a

system was already in effect in such a way that it could mediate

and equalize the rate ofprofit. He denied this not so much theoreti-

T H E L I M I T S O F I M P E R I A L I S M

231

cally as politically. Lenin maintained that capitalist development in

the monopoly phase would be plagued by a series ofcontradictions

and that communists had to act on them. It was the responsibility

ofthe workers’ movement to oppose every capitalist attempt at

organizing an effective equalization of imperialist rates of profit,

and it was the task ofthe revolutionary party to intervene in and

deepen the objective contradictions ofdevelopment. What had to

be avoided most was the realization ofthe tendency toward ‘‘ultra-

imperialism,’’ which would monstrously increase the power ofcapi-

tal and take away for a long period to come the possibility of

struggles on the most contradictory and thus weakest links in the

chain ofdomination. Lenin writes, either as hope or as prediction,

‘‘This development proceeds in such circumstances, at such a pace,

through such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals—not only

economic but political, national, etc.—that inevitably imperialism

will burst and capitalism will be transformed into its opposite
long

before
one world trust materialises, before the ‘ultra-imperialist,’

world-wide amalgamation ofnational finance capitals takes place.’’22

Lenin’s logical de´marche here between analytical propositions

and political positions was certainly tortuous. Nevertheless, his rea-

soning was very effective from the subjective point of view. As Ilya

Babel said, Lenin’s thought ran along ‘‘the mysterious curve ofthe

straight line’’ that carried the analysis ofthe reality ofthe working

class to the necessity ofits political organization. Lenin recognized

the untimely element ofthe definition ofimperialism and grasped

in the subjective practices ofthe working class not only the potential

obstacles to the linear solution ofthe crises ofcapitalist realization

(which Luxemburg emphasized too), but also the existing and con-

crete possibility that these practices—struggles, insurrections, and

revolutions—could destroy imperialism itself.23 In this sense Lenin

took the critique ofimperialism from theory to practice.

From Imperialism to Empire

One ofthe most remarkable aspects ofLenin’s analysis is his critique

ofimperialism as a political concept. Lenin brought together the

232

P A S S A G E S O F P R O D U C T I O N

problematic ofmodern sovereignty and that ofcapitalist develop-

ment under the lens ofone unified critique, and by weaving together

the different lines of critique, he was able to glimpse beyond moder-

nity. In other words, through his political re-elaboration ofthe

concept ofimperialism, Lenin, more than any other Marxist, was

able to anticipate the passage to a new phase ofcapital beyond

imperialism and identify the place (or really the non-place) of emerg-

ing imperial sovereignty.

When Lenin studied imperialism, he focused his attention not

only on the work ofthe various recent Marxist authors but also

further back to the work of John Hobson and his bourgeois populist

version ofthe critique ofimperialism.24 Lenin learned a great deal

from Hobson—which, incidentally, he could have learned equally

well from the German, French, or Italian populist theorists of impe-

rialism. In particular, he learned that the modern European nation-

states use imperialism to transfer outside their own borders the

political contradictions that arise within each single country. The

nation-state asks imperialism to resolve or really displace class strug-

gle and its destabilizing effects. Cecil Rhodes expressed the essence

ofthis function ofimperialism most clearly: ‘‘My cherished idea is

a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000

inhabitants ofthe United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we

colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus

population, to provide new markets for the goods produced by

them in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said,

is a bread and butter question. Ifyou want to avoid civil war, you

must become imperialists.’’25 Through imperialism, the modern

state exports class struggle and civil war in order to preserve order

and sovereignty at home.

Lenin saw imperialism as a structural stage in the evolution

ofthe modern state. He imagined a necessary and linear historical

progression from the first forms of the modern European state to