[introduction.]
p Monopoly arid parasitic capitalism is at the same time moribund capitalism.
p Lenin wrote: "It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already capitalism dying out, the beginning of its transition to socialism.”^^136^^
In addition to creating the material prerequisites for socialism, imperialism, Lenin noted, also creates the political prerequisites for socialism, driving all the contradictions of capitalism to extreme limits. This is a characteristic feature of imperialism as a dying capitalism. He thus emphasises that the opportunists’ hope of the “ evolution” of capitalism into socialism, or of the "automatic collapse" of capitalism, is groundless. Imperialism is doomed by the weight of its own crimes. It is swept away by the working masses rising in struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution. Lenin established scientifically that imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution,
Creating fhe Material Prerequisites of Socialism
p Under imperialism the material prerequisites develop for the transition to a higher social and economic system of society, i.e., to socialism. "When a big enterprise assumes gigantic proportions,” Lenin wrote, "and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organises according to plan the supply of primary raw materials to tho extent of two-thirds, or three-fourths, of all that is necessary for 255 tens of millions of people; when the raw materials are transported in a systematic and organised manner to the most suitable place of production, sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles; when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of work right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when these products are distributed according to a single plan among tens and hundreds of millions of consumers (the distribution of oil in America and Germany by the American ’oil trust’)—then it becomes evident that we have socialisation of production, and not mere ‘interlocking’; that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal be delayed by artificial means; a shell which may continue in a state of decay for a fairly long period... but which will inevitably be removed.”^^137^^
p Thus, large-scale socialisation of production in the period of imperialism creates the material prerequisites for socialism.
However, we must not confuse the material prerequisites for socialism with socialism itself. Socialism arises only after the working class gains political power, eliminates private ownership of the means of production and replaces it by common ownership. The replacement of capitalism by socialism is not possible through evolutionary development. It takes place by revolution, by a revolutionary leap, which requires not only the material prerequisites, but a number of objective and subjective conditions as well.
Sharpening of the Contradictions of Capitalism
p Imperialism is also moribund capitalism in that it sharpens all the contradictions of capitalism to the utmost.
p Above all, the basic contradiction—the contradiction between the social character of production and the private-capitalist form of appropriation—becomes acute. The concentration of production and the growth of monopolies signify a further development in the social character of production. Appropriation, however, remains private. Thus, the major contradiction of capitalism is intensified with the development of monopoly capitalism.
p On the basis of this, all the contradictions of capitalism grow more acute. The most important are the contradiction between labour and capital, the contradiction between the oppressed peoples of the dependent countries and the imperialist powers which exploit them, and the contradiction between the imperialist powers themselves.
The sharpening contradictions hasten the socialist revolution and the downfall of capitalism.
256Law of Uneven Economic and Political Development
p Under capitalism it is impossible for individual enterprises, industries and countries to develop evenly. Private ownership of the means of production, anarchy of production and competition make the uneven development of capitalist economy inevitable. Some capitalist enterprises, industries, and countries lag behind, while others shoot ahead. In the epoch of free competition, when there were no monopolies, capitalism developed relatively smoothly. A long period of time was required for certain countries to outstrip others. Since vast free territories were still open to colonisation, the growth of economic power was accompanied by the seizure of lands not held by other capitalist powers. This took place without large-scale military clashes. In this period of relatively peaceful capitalist development, the operation of the law of uneven development inherent in capitalism did not lead to world war.
p It took Britain many decades to achieve industrial supremacy, to oust her competitors—Holland and later France—and to establish herself as the dominant power in the world. In the middle of the nineteenth century she became the "workshop of the world”, supplying manufactured goods to all countries, in return for raw materials and foodstuffs. In 1850, the U.S. share in world industrial production was 15 per cent, while Britain’s was 39 per cent. As for Germany, until the 1870s her industrial strength was far less than Britain’s.
p A radical change took place with the transition to imperialism. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Great Britain’s monopoly was broken. This was due to the more rapid development of such capitalist countries as the U.S.A., Germany, and later Japan. In the early seventies, development in Britain and France slowed down. From 1870 to 1913, the total world industrial output increased almost fourfold, with U.S. output increasing nine times, Germany’s almost six times, France’s three times, and Britain’s only 2.25 times. On the eve of the First World War, Germany outstripped Britain and France with respect to volume of industrial production. The share of the United States in world industrial production exceeded the combined output of Britain and Germany.
p Thus, at the turn of the century, it became possible for some countries to outstrip others as a result of unprecedented advances in technique, the concentration of production and capital, and the development of monopolies. Countries undertaking capitalist development later than others greatly benefit by the technical progress already made and develop new branches of industry more rapidly. At the same time, the tendency to decay and slowing-down of the development of the productive forces sets in earlier in the “old” capitalist countries. As a result, some countries develop by leaps and bounds, while others slow down. The old distribution of colonies and spheres 257 of influence no longer corresponds to the new relation of forces. Countries which forge ahead resort to armed struggle for the redivision of the already divided world, for seizure of colonies. The contradictions between the imperialist countries increase enormously, the imperialist front is shaken and weak links begin to appear in the chain of world imperialism.
p Uneven economic development in the epoch of imperialism is related to uneven political development, i.e., to the fact that the political prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution do not mature simultaneously in all countries. Lenin stated that "the proletarian revolution develops unevenly in the various countries since the conditions of political life are different in each country—in one country the proletariat is far too weak and in another it is stronger. Whereas in one country the top section of the proletariat is weak, in others the bourgeoisie succeeds in splitting the workers temporarily, as in Britain and France. That is why the proletarian revolution develops unevenly....”^^138^^
p Analysing the changes due to the operation of the law of uneven development of capitalist countries in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin came to the conclusion that the victory of the revolution in all countries simultaneously was impossible and that, on the contrary, the victory of the revolution was quite possible at first in several countries, or even a single country. This was a new theory of socialist revolution. Marx and Engels, in studying pre-monopoly capitalism, had concluded that the revolution could triumph only simultaneously in all, or in the major, capitalist countries. However, the situation changed with the transition to imperialism. The growth of imperialist contradictions and the uneven maturing of the revolution in the various countries made it possible to break the chain of imperialism initially at its weakest link.
Experience has completely borne out the correctness of the Leninist theory of socialist revolution.
Notes
