Lenin's theory of imperialism combines Marxist theory with a dialectical critique of classical imperialism theories. The idea reflects on the evolution of capitalism and its spread from richer to poorer countries in the nineteenth century. The model investigates and builds the value chains of emerging civilizations, providing a Marxist perspective on historical material and value exchanges. It is well-known for declaring war on classical world values, practices, and institutions and for giving a distinct and comprehensive cognitive approach, philosophical attitude, and ideal view of society following colonization. In the light of Leninism, Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was triggered by the financial capitalism that was unevenly developed across the country. The masses began opposing the Tsarist regime that had governed the country for centuries that advocated for aristocracy. The Tsarist leadership advocated for alienation of the masses from surplus production and education (Weeks 2011, p.25). This essay demonstrates that the Lenin’s ideas came to the fore of the Russian Revolution because they fit the dictates of economic interests and circumstances in Russia in the early 19th century.
Lenin’s Elements of International Economic and Political Influence
Lenin’s theory of imperialism explains how the wealthy countries indulged in exploitation of the less developed countries in the wake of the 19th century. The theory addresses capital accumulation in the industrialised nations, the resultant surpluses, and the desire to colonise new territories for raw materials and markets and transfer of excess capital to the less developed nations for exploitation of labour. The theorist also explains how capital transfer evolved with time, changing from direct state exploitation to multinational corporations. In this essay, the Russian Revolution will be addressed suing three elements of Leninism’s theory of international economics and politics: (a) capital accumulation and its transfer to the colonies and semi-colonies in the early 19th century, (b) monopoly of the capital, and (c) exploitation of the colonies.
Capital Accumulation and Transfer
According to Lenin, imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism and the most important feature of the global political economy in the early 20th century (Lenin 1999, p.15). He states that capital was the primary element of such imperialism. Lenin starts by claiming that the concentration of capital and inequality are linked. Finance capital, which was the most dominant form of capital at that time was used state machinery to colonise the periphery (the poor of that time). The industrialists began practicing imperialism by accumulating capital and exploiting labour locally. With their strategies, inequality and aggregate demand levels within the local population escalated, thereby increasing the industrialists’ productive capacity domestically. However, the condition was unsustainable in the end. As time passed, there were raw material shortages, which eventually raised the cost of raw materials. The raw materials scarcity and the rising prices of raw materials threatened profits of the bourgeoisie, thereby compelling the countries opt to search for new sources of raw materials and markets abroad through scramble and partition of the less-developed overseas territories. Exporting capital to the developing countries was a survival. It was the primary reason why the competition among the colonists did not stop after taking over colonies and semi-colonies (Steiner 2007, p.46). The nations primarily began competing for markets and resources by taking them from one another.
Russia industrialised rapidly in at the turn of the 20th century. However, it is important to realise that the Russian industrialisation took off after the USA and Western Europe had industrialised. However, the Russian industrialists embraced extreme exploitation of workers, resulting in immense poverty. When Tsar Nicholas began ruling Russia in 1894, he adopted the autocratic ideas of the Romanov dynasty, which advocated for the exploitation of the working class and the exclusion of the working class from education with a goal of facilitating the accumulation of profits among the bourgeoisie. Employee earnings were constantly dwindling and working conditions were becoming harsher. For instance, work breaks and time-offs were limited and employee abuse in factories was a norm. In addition, most of them were deprived of education, approximately 60% of the people were illiterate. The Russian children born to poor parents were not allowed to attend school as a strategy of ensuring that they remain workers forever. The children also began working at an early age.
At the time when the revolution took off, most of the Russians had been turned into peasants and the workers toiling in industries under the mercy of owners of large tracts of land and industries. Because they were making tremendous profits, the Russian industries were advancing at an incredible speed. In fact, despite that, it began industrialising after the USA and Western Europe, Russia had eventually owned larger and advanced factories in the world and highly concentrated working class than the latter after a few years of industrialisation.
Monopoly
Direct international intervention as the highest and inevitable outcome of imperialistic ideologies according to Lenin’s theory of international economics and politics. The process of exploiting the periphery incorporated monopolising the capitalistic mode of production on a global scale. The imperialist monopolisation process entailed merging of the financial and industrial capital to create a powerful oligarchy of financial capital. With state capital, the indigenous industry was undermined to make the colonies dependent on the core investment in the future. The case is illustrated by the events of the second half of the 20th century where more financial capital was concentrated into large monopolistic corporations and became integrated and enhanced formation of few large financial oligarchies across the globe.
After the developing nations gained independence, a neoliberal era emerged where MNCs dominate in the global business. The industrialists began exchanged slave labour with waged labour. However, the activities of capital transfer did not stop. Presently, private MNCs aligned to the imperialists continue to have a flexible relationship with the state and can call for state intervention when they are in a crisis. Such intervention reduces chances of a collapse in the less developed nations to ensure continued dominance. Losses are socialised while profits are private through state subsidies. High productivity in the foreign economies is enhanced by states sponsored research in learning institutions. The private-public partnerships enhance the MNCs to advance the interests of their capitalistic states.
In Russia, the Tsar government promoted monopoly of capital by exploiting labour and limiting the people’s access to education. Under the autocratic leadership of Tsars, the education was reserved for the nobility and some middle-class members of the society. The strategy created the caste system where it was too hard for the workers to advance to the middle and upper classes of the society regardless of their contribution to the profits of the bourgeoisie. Ideally, the Tsar governance was characterised by a caste system. By ensuring limiting the people’s access to education, it was hard for the population to advance economically to become capital owners to compete with the existing bourgeoisie. In addition, by ensuring that the workers were less educated, Tsars hardened their capability of rising in ranks within the industries. By failing to acquire capital and rise in ranks, a system encompassing poor masses that provide labour to industrialists to enable them to accumulate profits was enhanced. With inherent exploitation, chances of the masses acquiring capital to move up in the social ladder were also minimised significantly similar to the manner in which advanced economies ensure that the less developed countries are incapable of competing with them in production.
Exploitation
The overall effect is pumping of the wealth out of the periphery by the core is exploitation by the core. During colonialism, the core surpluses were realised by exploiting the labour in the colonies. Historically, with large amounts of capital, the core oppressed peripheral labour to produce raw materials and primary commodities at a low cost at the periphery, which was actually the colonies. In the process, affluent strata (CEOs and top executives of MNCs) were created at the periphery to consume commodities that were imported from the core. More specifically, exploitation triggered the emergence of the labour aristocracy, a stratum of labour that is well-paid because they are loyal to the capitalistic class. The resultant nation-state rivalry class struggle emerged, and the strength of the bourgeoisie against the propagated intensified. With such strategy, it is possible to suck value from poor countries with the capital of the imperialist state-sanctioned monopolies like British and Dutch Indies paved way for higher forms of commodity exchange (Bauer 1976, p.165).
However, according to Lenin, the exploitative strength is short-term. The long periods of exploitation were followed by a push for the workers for proletariat democracy (Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute 2015, p.287). Traditionally, it could result in the nationalist movements at the periphery. For instance, the anti-colonial wars emerged amidst a feeling of exploitation among the workers at the periphery. Even the most powerful nations faced such labour rebellions when the feeling of exploitation escalated. After losing control over colonies, the core would stagnate domestically, which would, in turn, cause economic stagnation that raises antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariats that would lead to social revolution in the core
Ideally, Lenin suggests that the exploitation by the direct seizing of the economies of other countries to acquire resources by great powers evolved from state-controlled direct intervention to multinational corporations. With capital, underdeveloped economies are exploited by the capital of the imperialist core states through foreign investment and trade. Profits and interest from the less developed states are used to improve the economies of the core imperialists. As a result, one state is the oppressor while the other one becomes the oppressed indirectly. To Lenin, the imperialist countries continue to prosper parasitically by robbing weaker nations and colonies (Hobson 2005, p.36). It creates a notion of a handful of advanced countries strangling and oppressing a majority because they own a larger proportion of financial capital than the other.
In Russia, Tsar’s the Revolution of the masses occurred because autocratic ideas and instincts collided with the modern Russians that were highly educated, and the urbanised and restless society. He grew unpopular for his war with Japan, family problems and killing of peaceful protesters in January 1905. The soldiers and hungry workers swarmed to St. Petersburg in 1914 to protest against Russia’s involvement in the war that had led to the loss of lives (Krupskaya 2004, p.28). The people were angry and filled with despair for toiling in the shadow of the lavish palaces of the city. The revolution was characterised but the rejection of the state and figures that were in authority such as judges, police, army and navy officer, teachers, priests, government officials, patriarchal minded men and village elders. Towards February in 1914, red flags filled signalling rejection of the monarchy the city. Rather than avoiding open conflict, the Tsar forces opened fire against protesters. Instead of calming down, the protests gained momentum. When public pressure increased, he laid a foundation for civil right protection, created a constitution and parliament called Duma.
The public opposition against him increased when he took a supreme command of the armed forces and in 1914. The Bolsheviks were inspired by the perception that it is a revolt that they could enable labourers to become the ruling class. On February 23, 1917, female factory workers half a demonstration in the Russian Capital (Serge and Sedgwick 2015, p.57). They protested against the famine, especially after the government failed to provide sufficient relief during famine. They were also opposed to the appalling exploitation of the poor in the cities. The worker’s poverty also triggered waves of strikes and protests. With mass protests, the authorities were eventually deprived of the military power in the Russia’s capital. On February 27, the socialist parties that were the major agents of the revolutionary war demanded Duma leaders to form a government to rule in accordance with the doctrines of Karl Marx. In March 1917, he was overthrown by Bolsheviks that were inspired by Karl Marx.
The people that had enabled Lenin to over the government were those that were poor and those that were unable to pay for their education and the education of their children because of poverty. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin and his communist government initiated different reforms in Russia. For instance, they took land from the nobles, the church, Tsar and other landlords and distributed it among peasants. The primary goal of the approach was the reward the peasants for being loyal during the Revolution and reform the agricultural section. The government improved labour laws, reducing the long working hours to eight hours per day and forty hours per week. In addition, Lenin reformed the education system of Russia to permit the low class to acquire the education that they were limited to in the previous aristocratic movement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ideas of Lenin came before the Russian revolution. The Tsar leadership advocated for exploitative industrial practices such as long working hours, poor working conditions and poor pay for workers to maintain profits of the bourgeoisie protect their class. However, aristocracy translated poor masses and famine in Russia. After decades of exploitation, the people rose against the ruling class in 1917 as stated in the Marxist ideologies of the 19th century. The working class wanted their industries to be reformed to ensure the working conditions were favourable to them. They also wanted to acquire education to enable them to advance economically. The Bolsheviks, which took over from the Tsars reformed the system by taking land from landowners and giving it to peasants to promote food production. They also improved Russia’s education system to allow the low-class to have access to it.
References
Bauer, P.T., 1976. Dissent on development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hobson, J.A., 2005. Imperialism: a study. New York: Cosimo.
Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, 2015. Essential texts of Marxism-Leninism. Morrisville, NC: lulu.com.
Krupskaya, N.K., 2004. Reminiscences of Lenin. Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific.
Lenin, V.I., 1999. Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism. Sydney, Australia: Resistance Books.
Serge, V., and Sedgwick, P., 2015. Year one of the Russian revolution. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Steiner, Z.S., 2007. The lights that failed European international history, 1919-1933. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Weeks, J., 2011. Capital, exploitation and economic crisis. London: Taylor & Francis.
