powers, their international quarrels would be confined to colonial territories. But Lenin reduces all of international politics to his formula:

The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agricultural regions, but even highly industrialized regions... because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges those contemplating a new partition to stretch out their hands to any kind of territory, and (2) because an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between a number of great powers in the striving for hegemony. . . .

40

"Inherent contradictions of imperialism"

There are thus two kind of "contradictions" which, according to Lenin, contribute to the downfall of the system: the "contradictions" between the leading industrial powers, and that between the rich countries and the emerging power of the formerly colonial areas.

Capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the colonies and in trans-oceanic countries. Among the latter, new imperialist powers are emerging (e.g., Japan). The struggle of world imperialism is becoming aggravated.

We ask is there under capitalism any means of remedying the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and "spheres of influence" by finance capital on the other side-other than by resorting to war? 41

...

imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system, as long as private property in the means of production exists.12 Thus, Lenin has now combined "war" with "exploitation" as the evil for which he indicts capitalism.

In the Marxist concept of history, the reader will remember, it appeared inevitable that capitalist society be supplanted by socialist society. Lenin here adds, as it were, that what is inevitable is also good and desirable. This leads him to ask the rhetorical question:

whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the aggravation of the antagonisms which it engenders, or backwards, towards allaying these antagonisms . . .

Ibid., pp. 83, 84.

a Ibid., pp. 89, 90.

43

49 Lenin, Preface to the French and German editions of "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (July 6, 1920), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. V, p. 8.

'Lenin, “Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism” (January-July 1916), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. V, p. 101.

Lenin's answer is implicit in the form in which the question is asked. He makes it even clearer when he defines imperialism as

capitalism in transition, or more precisely, as moribund capitalism." He puts the "Revolution"-which Marx had described as the action of the "overwhelming majority of the people"-on a new worldwide basis:

Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world by a handful of "advanced" countries."5

The downfall of capitalism, he predicts, will be hastened by the revolutionary action of all the colonial peoples:

The tens of millions of dead and maimed left by the war . . . and the two "peace treaties" . . . open the eyes of the millions and tens of millions of people who are downtrodden, oppressed, deceived, and duped by the bourgeoisie, with a rapidity hitherto unprecedented. Thus, out of the universal ruin caused by the war an international revolutionary crisis is arising which, in spite of the protracted and difficult stages it may have to pass, cannot end in any other way than in a proletarian revolution and in its victory.

Imperialism is the eve of the proletarian social revolution."

Weaknesses of Lenin's concept

Lenin's picture of the world as an imperialist, predatory, oppressive system torn by conflict and wars, is, in its way, as impressive at first glance as is Marx's picture of spiralling capitalistic production of wealth and misery. Both have enough support in observable facts to appear plausible. But Lenin's explanation, no less than that of Marx, has been refuted by actual developments, and more and more people realize that there is a fundamental flaw in his basic analysis. The world has not been further divided. On the contrary, most of the formerly colonial areas have now obtained their independence. Capitalism has raised the standard of living of the people, which Lenin declared impossible unless it developed agriculture, which he also considered impossible in the nature of the system. Agriculture is now producing huge surpluses precisely in some of the most advanced capitalistic countries, and the dependence of these countries on "underdeveloped" areas for raw materials and markets has diminished rather than increased.

“Ibid., p. 117.

"Lenin, Preface to the French and German editions of "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (July 6, 1920), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. V, p. 9.

“Ibid., pp. 9, 12.

The leading industrial countries have developed policies and international institutions to promote international peace, and it is the Soviet Union which rather has been the cause of international conflict in the last fifteen years. The trend toward concentration of capital has not gone unchecked. Big business, though powerful, has turned out to be simply one of several centers of power in democratic society, and it has not been able to check either labor unions or farm organizations, just as it has neither escaped heavy taxation nor had its way in foreign policies. Democratic and capitalistic countries, far from being dominated by a few monopolists, have seen the rise of vigorous labor and farm organizations, as well as of political parties whose competition for voters' attention has secured a diffusion of power among many groups and sections of the people. It is in the Soviet Union, on the other hand, that a monopoly of management, ideological control, and political power has been concentrated in the hands of a small group of Communists. In other words, Lenin's Imperialism is just as little as that of Marx's Capital a true picture of democratic industrial society and its develop

ment.

5. Communists in "Present-day Society"

It is now becoming more and more clear that the end of the sway of capitalism is drawing near in other countries, too, and that capitalism is a system that has outlived its age and is bound to perish. The future is ours! The future is for Marxism-Leninism! The future is for communism! . . .47

This view of "present-day society" is not new for Communists. It has been implicit in Communist doctrine from the beginning.

"Present-day Society" is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries. . . .

. . . In this sense it is possible to speak of the "present-day state", contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.48

Communist attitudes toward "present-day society"

Communist ideas about "present-day society" determine the attitude which Communists take toward their fellow-citizens, with whom they share existence in "present-day society." The proper attitude of Marxists toward "present-day society" has been the chief issue between Communists and democratic socialists. In Germany, for instance, socialists debated at the beginning of this century whether (a) their cause should

"Excerpts from Khrushchev speech November 3, 1958; New York Times, Nov. 5, 1958, p. 2.

"Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (May 1875), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p.

be promoted by revolutionary mass actions or rather by working for increased influence of the party in the legislature; and (b) whether socialists should flatly refuse to support the military establishment or rather obtain social improvements as the price of voting for certain military appropriations." The alternative of cooperation looks toward a gradual reformation of society through the political power of the socialist party. The revolutionary alternative looks upon "present-day society" as something that is utterly corrupt as well as utterly doomed, so that one need take no interest in its problems other than to the end of hastening its collapse and of detaching the masses from its authorities. This view is the one on which Lenin insisted as the core of communism. On this issue, he bitterly attacked the "reformists" whom he accused of

treason.

.. the new "critical" tendency in socialism is nothing more nor less than a new species of opportunism.5

50

. . . The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society. . . .51

Thus, the Communist doctrine forbids any bona fide participation in "present-day society" for the purpose of improving conditions in that society. But it treats reforms as a means to "utilize economic agitation" for the fight against the entire structure of society.

... it subordinates the struggle for reforms to the revolutionary struggle.

52

The Communist assumption is that "present-day society" as a whole is worthless.

... we must make it our business to stimulate in the minds of those who are dissatisfied only with [particular] . . . conditions the idea that the whole political system is worthless. 53

Marx, who had but disdain for the "Utopian Socialists," nevertheless approved of one element in their literature which "contained most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class." This "valuable" aspect of utopian literature was, to Marx, their attack on "every principle of existing society." By contrast, Marx chided the Utopian Socialists for their endeavor to "deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms," in other words, to improve and reform "present

954

"Cf., Carl E. Schorske, German Social Democracy, 1905-1917 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955), particularly part I.

"Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 32.

51 Ibid., p. 31.

2 Ibid., p. 83.

Ibid., p. 103.

"Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847– January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 63.

day society" rather than to look for its destruction, in accordance with the "progressive historical development of the proletariat."

55

Lenin's writings are full of expressions of a total rejection of the whole "present-day society".

. . the rottenness, mendacity, and hypocrisy of capitalism.56

.

the forthcoming collapse of capitalism. . . .57

in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false. . . .58

Bourgeois democracy . . . remains . . . restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical. . . .59

What is more, in "present-day society" no reconciliation of the classes is possible, and therefore the class-struggle must be fanned rather than mitigated.

For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition of classes, not the improvement of existing society but the foundation of a new one.60

... The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. . . .

According to Marx, the State could neither arise nor continue to exist if it were possible to conciliate classes.o1

preaching collaboration of classes and "social peace" between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to think that such a position. . . could lead to anything but disgraceful failure.62

Thus the Communist sees himself in "present-day society":

surrounded on all sides by enemies. . . under their almost con

Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (Nov. 10, 1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 133.

Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 77.

5 Ibid., p. 82.

5o Lenin, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (Nov. 10, 1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 130.

* Marx and Engels, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" (March 1850), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 110.

61

Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, pp. 8, 9.

Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (Nov. 10, 1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 151.

63

Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 33.