So it can be seen that the conditions that Trotsky set out in Permanent Revolution, that Lenin set out in Two Tactics of Social Democracy, and that the Comintern set out in the Thesis on the Colonial Question, never really applied to the conditions existing in Egypt.
All of those were based on the assumption that a colonial power would wage a determined struggle to prevent independence, or that an imperialist power would be able to exert indirect control over such a state via, gunboat diplomacy, and the co-operation of a comprador bourgeoisie. But, in reality the economic basis upon which those types of regime were established was already out of date, by the time the Thesis on the Colonial Question was written. The economic basis upon which colonialism rested was in reality merely a foreign extension of feudal relations, resulting from a joint venture between the landed aristocracy, and the merchants, and the political regimes established reflected that. The idea that the imperialist powers needed to carve up the world between them, in order to obtain both cheap sources of raw materials and foodstuffs, and protected markets, into which they could sell their products, particularly their surplus production, is doubtful, in fact, ever to have been true. In fact, the main European colonial powers, such as Britain, Spain, Portugal, and Holland had developed their colonies long before the development of industrial capitalism, and, therefore, long before there was any need to dispose of surplus production, or indeed to source large new sources of primary products.
Even in Britain, although industrial capitalism had become dominant by the middle of the 19th Century, as Engels points out,
“The Reform Bill of 1831 had been the victory of the whole capitalist class over the landed aristocracy. The repeal of the Corn Laws was the victory of the manufacturing capitalist not only over the landed aristocracy, but over those sections of capitalists, too, whose interests were more or less bound up with the landed interest-bankers, stockjobbers, fundholders, etc.
Free Trade meant the readjustment of the whole home and foreign, commercial and financial policy of England in accordance with the interests of the manufacturing capitalists — the class which now [These words belong apparently not to Bright but to his adherents. See The Quarterly Review, Vol. 71, No. 141, p. 273.-Ed.] represented the nation. And they set about this task with a will. Every obstacle to industrial production was mercilessly removed. The tariff and the whole system of taxation were revolutionised. Everything was made subordinate to one end, but that end of the utmost importance to the manufacturing capitalist: the cheapening of all raw produce, and especially of the means of living of the working class; the reduction of the cost of raw material, and the keeping down – if not as yet the bringing down - of wages. England was to become the ‘workshop of the world’; all other countries were to become for England what Ireland already was-markets for her manufactured goods, supplying her in return with raw materials and food. England, the great manufacturing centre of an agricultural world, with an ever-increasing number of corn and cotton-growing Irelands revolving around her, the industrial sun. What a glorious prospect!”
In other words, the existing colonies formed a ready made basis for achieving these ends. It should also be noted that as Engels again recognises, even until the latter part of the 19th Century, the landlords, and their associates – the Bankers, Stock-jobbers and Fundholders – continued to exercise a dominant political role in Parliament. It was only with the introduction of Universal Male Suffrage that their stranglehold was broken, enabling the industrial bourgeoisie to obtain a secure measure of control over the political regime, and then only by winning the support of the workers.
“Chartism was dying out. The revival of commercial prosperity, natural after the revulsion of 1847 had spent itself, was put down altogether to the credit of Free Trade. Both these circumstances had turned the English working class, politically, into the tail of the ‘great Liberal Party’, the party led by the manufacturers. This advantage, once gained, had to be perpetuated. And the manufacturing capitalists, from the Chartist opposition, not to Free Trade, but to the transformation of Free Trade into the one vital national question, had learnt, and were learning more and more, that the middle class can never obtain full social and political power over the nation except by the help of the working class. Thus a gradual change came over the relations between both classes. The Factory Acts, once the bugbear of all manufacturers, were not only willingly submitted to, but their expansion into acts regulating almost all trades was tolerated. Trades Unions, hitherto considered inventions of the devil himself, were now petted and patronised as perfectly legitimate institutions, and as useful means of spreading sound economical doctrines amongst the workers. Even strikes, than which nothing had been more nefarious up to 1848, were now gradually found out to be occasionally very useful, especially when provoked by the masters themselves, at their own time. Of the legal enactments, placing the workman at a lower level or at a disadvantage with regard to the master, at least the most revolting were repealed. And, practically, that horrid People’s Charter actually became the political programme of the very manufacturers who had opposed it to the last. The Abolition of the Property Qualification and Vote by Ballot are now the law of the land. The Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 make a near approach to universal suffrage, at least such as it now exists in Germany; the Redistribution Bill now before Parliament creates equal electoral districts-on the whole not more unequal than those of France or Germany; payment of members, and shorter, if not actually annual Parliaments, are visibly looming in the distance and yet there are people who say that Chartism is dead.”
In fact, the kinds of trends that Lenin identified in his “Imperialism”, in fact trends that others such as Hilferding and Hobson had set out, in relation to the export of capital could hardly be an explanation for colonialism, for the reasons Warren set out in his “Imperialism, Pioneer of Capitalism.”
As I stated in my blog, Imperialism & War,
“But, even a casual inspection showed what was wrong with this theory. Firstly, Lenin argues that the division of the world, the monopolisation of colonies is a consequence of the development of the monopolisation of production and rise of Finance Capital. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the division of the world amongst the imperialist powers was already completed by the end of the 19th century, and the main scrabble for colonies occurred at that time. Yet, even according to Lenin, the rise of Finance Capital, and the dominance of the Monopolies did not occur until the beginning of the twentieth century. So, if that occurred AFTER the world had already been divided up, it could not have been the cause of that division! Secondly, Finance Capital as analysed by Hilferding, was a description of the situation in Germany, but it did not fit the picture in Britain or France, and yet it was Britain and France who WERE the main imperialist powers, the biggest holders of Colonies. In fact, the British economy was the one, probably LEAST characterised by Monopoly at the beginning of the twentieth century.
But, there were further problems with Lenin’s theory as Bill Warren points out in “Imperialism – Pioneer of Capitalism”. For example, there does not seem to have been any particular increase in overseas investment into the colonies by the imperialist powers during this period compared with the investment of previous decades, and Lenin’s argument that it was this rather than the colonies being simply markets for the imperialist powers surplus production does not seem to be born out by the facts either. Moreover, Lenin says that there is a causal link between Monopoly economic power and colonisation, but he does not make clear what that causal link really is. In fact, the theory seems to contradict another fundamental aspect of Marxism, including Lenin’s own analysis, and that is the theory of combined and uneven development. That theory, which is readily observable, states that different economies develop at different rates, that at any one time, the world will have economies at different stages of development. But, in that case it beggars belief that all of these “imperialist economies” could have arrived at the same stage of development at the very same time i.e. the stage where there economies were dominated by monopoly. It even further beggars belief that this point in time just also happened to coincide with the moment when the entire world had been completely divided up!!! As Warren says, it is difficult not to see Lenin’s pamphlet as anything more than a first draft, and the many caveats that Lenin includes in almost every section – some as Warren says, to the extent of making the statements therein meaningless - is testament to that. Yet, on the basis of this pamphlet, many on the Left still base their explanations of the world economy, and more importantly their attitude towards “anti-imperialism”, and questions of War.”
And as I pointed out in my blog, Imperialism, Industrialisation & Trade
“Lenin’s theory of “Imperialism”, was really a theory of Colonialism not Imperialism. It was based on the idea that Colonialism had divided the world up, that each Colonial power had a Monopoly position in each particular colony. But, the Colonial Revolution put an end to that situation. Not only did it bring political independence to those former colonies meaning they were free to choose their own economic policies, but it meant that the situation of Monopoly was itself ended, and far from a position of Monopoly it meant that there was intense competition BETWEEN the “Imperialist” powers not just to secure markets for their goods within them, but to secure supplies of basic materials, food etc. and increasingly between the multinational companies that raised global economic competition to new heights, to be able to locate their production in these countries, to take account of their plentiful supplies of cheap labour, and potential markets for their products. Far from this period being one that was characterised by the limitations of Monopoly it was marked by a substantial intensification of COMPETITION!”
No comments:
Post a Comment