The aim of this chapter is to examine Marxist imperialism theory with a historical and integrative approach. How has this theory developed over time? What direction have foundational discussions around imperialism taken since the start of the 20th century? What has Marxism to offer to a systematic understanding of contemporary imperialism? Building on these three key questions, this chapter will be split into three parts. The first will consider classical theories of imperialism of the early 20th century; the second will discuss the most salient Cold War era theories such as dependency and world-systems. The final section will examine key contemporary debates in the post-Cold War era.
Methodologically, this chapter will be based on integrative review, which constitutes “a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrative way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated” (Torraco, 2005, p. 356). Aiming for a more diverse and systematic base of knowledge on the topic in question, integrative review reconceptualizes the synthesized knowledge (Torraco, 2005; Whittemore & Knafl, 2014). In sum, it seeks to reach a coherent and renewed conceptual framework about the topic in question (Torraco, 2005, p. 362).
Classical theories of imperialism
John A. Hobson’s work Imperialism: A Study (2005 [1902]) presented much of the basis for early Marxist theorizing on imperialism. Although Hobson was not a Marxist economist, his writings about imperialism had an important influence on Marxism as he was the first to offer a comprehensive explanation of imperialism. He unveiled the close relationship between Africa’s colonization, escalating inter-imperialist rivalries, and the rise of monopolies (Hobson, 2005; Brewer, 2002). In Hobson’s view, imperialism is but a reflection of state policies that symbolize the tendency of capitalism to go past national boundaries in order to remedy the problem of underconsumption and overaccumulation (Hobson, 2005: 80). Financial investors – who came to control key industrial sectors and monopolies – are the leading agents of imperialist policies, according to Hobson. They co-opt politicians, intellectuals and journalists in order to manufacture consent for imperialist policies (Hobson, 2005; Saccarelli & Varadarajan, 2015; Brewer, 2002; Ness & Cope, 2016; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009; Sen & Marcuzzo, 2018).
Many prominent Marxists such as Rosa Luxemburg and Paul Sweezy were heavily influenced by Hobson’s thesis of underconsumption as the root of imperialism in the West (Brewer, 2002). Hobson’s approach differed radically from theirs, however. Especially, his opinion that imperialism can be restrained through reforms to capitalism such as progressive taxation and the welfare state (Hobson, 2005, p. 88) has been heavily contested in the Marxist literature. Hobson also felt that inequalities might be lessened by reducing imperialist military spending (Hobson, 2005; Saccarelli & Varadarajan, 2015; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009; Ness & Cope, 2016). However, world history, as is highlighted by the rise of neoliberalism, demonstrates that reforms are but temporary solutions within the confines of capitalism given that extensive welfare systems cannot be sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, social reforms have not prevented imperialist aggression, as exemplified by the frequent US interventions during the Keynesian era of the Cold War.
Rudolf Hilferding is often identified as the first to provide a systematic study of imperialism in Marxism (Sen & Marcuzzo, 2018). His magnum opus, Finance Capital: A Study in the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development, (Hilferding, 1981 [1919]) explores the development of finance capital in Germany and Austria. By imperialism, he mainly refers to capitalism’s militaristic and expansionist tendencies. Hilferding stresses the importance of finance capital, which refers to the merging of industrial and financial capital. This merger reflects the growing trend of capital concentration and centralization, under which free competition leaves its place to monopolies, through the medium of big banks and powerful states (Hilferding, 1981, pp. 234–235; Brewer, 2002; Simbulan, 2017; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009; Ness & Cope, 2016; Sen & Marcuzzo, 2018). Hilferding argues that monopoly investments have become increasingly dependent on the support of banks. Banks have therefore gained significant leverage over monopolies, with bank representatives receiving positions on the management boards of these monopolies. This process was also aided by nepotistic ties within the business community. Another factor contributing to monopolization was the banks’ belief that investment risks can be minimized by allowing larger firms to grow and dominate the market. Hilferding highlights that the growth of finance capital allows for firmer control over the state apparatus. In turn, powerful states serve as the night-watchman of finance capital (Hilferding, 1981; Brewer, 2002; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009; Ness & Cope, 2016; Sen & Marcuzzo, 2018).
Although Hilferding’s analysis heavily inspired later theories of imperialism in Marxism, including Bukharin, Lenin, Baran, and Sweezy, his unfounded predictions about the future of imperialism generated heavy criticism, particularly in the post-World War I era (Gronow, 2016; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009; Ness & Cope, 2016). Different from Lenin, Hilferding asserted that the tendency of capital towards centralization and concentration of capital cannot be constrained and that this process is likely to end up with the formation of a single cartel, as a result of which “it [would be] possible to overcome not only the anarchic nature of capitalism, but also its inner antagonism” (Gronow, 2016, p. 32). However, this prediction has been clearly refuted by world history, namely that World War I was succeeded by another world war. Possible counter-arguments against Hilferding can also be drawn from contemporary examples, such as the so-called “Arab Spring” process that led to wide-scale conflicts and imperialist interventions, branded as the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II. The same goes for the 2007–2008 crisis, considered as the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression. This adds to the beginning of a new Cold War between the United States and Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, and Iran (Gürcan, 2019).
Rosa Luxemburg should not be forgotten in discussing classical theories of imperialism. Her conceptualization of imperialism revolves around the thesis of primitive accumulation and underconsumption. Luxemburg defines imperialism as “the political expression of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment” (Luxemburg, 2003 [1913], p. 426). Capitalism thus expresses an expansionist tendency to subjugate non-capitalist economies through such means as “lending abroad, railroad constructions, revolutions, and wars [militarism]” (Luxemburg, 2003, p. 426). According to Luxemburg, capitalism is also driven towards expansion to gain greater access to cheap raw materials and labor (Luxemburg, 2003; Brewer, 2002; Ness & Cope, 2016).
As mentioned earlier, Luxemburg is an important underconsumptionist figure. This being said, it is possible to argue that Luxemburg could not foresee how capitalism is able to find temporary fixes to the problem of underconsumption, which was particularly observed in its “Golden Age” in the 1950s and 1960s. The consumer credit boom in the neoliberal era also served as a temporary fix (Ness & Cope, 2016). Moreover, Lenin criticized Luxemburg for developing a “nihilist” attitude towards national liberation movements in the developing world, because Luxemburg distanced herself from national liberation movements against imperialism due to their bourgeois and divisive tendencies. She viewed the idea of creating new nation-states as archaic. Lenin countered this by insisting that the world in the age of imperialism is divided into oppressing and oppressed nations (Lenin, 1916a, 1916b; Lewis, 2000; Luxemburg, 1976, 2003; Ness & Cope, 2016; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009).
Bukharin’s contributions to Marxist theorizing on imperialism cannot be omitted either. Hobson and Hilferding’s works seem to have deeply inspired Bukharin’s theory, which defines imperialism as a policy of conquest, structurally ingrained in capitalism itself and driven by finance capital (Bukharin, 1972 [1917], p. 114; Brewer, 2002). Bukharin thus adapted Hilferding’s arguments on finance capital and monopolization through state support. In his view, the age of imperialism is characterized by dual, opposing, but intertwined processes. On the one hand, capitalism gives way to an increasingly globalized economy. On the other, capitalism creates an unequal division of labor where the working class of advanced capitalist countries is brought under the influence of bourgeois values. Moreover, world peace is threatened by the emergence of rival blocs of capitalists and the class of “national” capitalist interests (Bukharin, 1972, pp. 106–107). For this very reason, Bukharin rejects Karl Kautsky’s thesis of ultra-imperialism, according to which capitalists of different nations are not doomed to militarized rivalry and instead they can establish peaceful coexistence and cooperation (Bukharin, 1972; Brewer, 2002; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009). Furthermore, Bukharin does not concur with Hobson and Luxemburg’s thesis of underconsumption. He instead asserts that the internationalization of capital goes hand in hand with inter-imperialist rivalry in parallel with “increased competition in the sales markets, in the markets of raw materials, and for the spheres of capital investment” (Bukharin, 1972, p. 104). In other words, this process does not really concern capital surplus and lacking domestic investment opportunities (Bukharin, 1972, p. 104; Bukharin, 1924; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009). Bukharin also objects to Luxemburg’s portrayal of imperialism as an expansionist tendency of capitalist accumulation directed at the non-capitalist world given that imperialism shows further interest in expanding within the sphere of capitalism (Bukharin, 1924; Ness & Cope, 2016; Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009).
It can be argued that the classical theories of imperialism arrived at their phase of maturity with Lenin’s creative synthesis of previous theories. In Lenin’s view, imperialism involves more than mere policy choices and practices. Furthering Bukharin’s perspective, he conceptualizes imperialism as a historical structure (Brewer, 2002; Simbulan, 2017; Saccarelli & Varadarajan, 2015). He also emphasizes the inescapably belligerent and parasitic nature of imperialism, unsustainable in the longer term. Nevertheless, Lenin took account of Hobson and Hilferding’s early observations about finance capital and the role of states. He combined this with Bukharin’s insights into uneven and combined development and the emergence of labor aristocracy in the West (Sotiropoulos & Milios, 2009; Brewer, 2002; Sen & Marcuzzo, 2018). Overall, Lenin’s (1916c) formula attributed imperialism to a set of five different, but interrelated factors: capital concentration, the rise of finance capital, the acceleration of capital exports, the intensification of competition between monopolies aspiring to achieve world domination, and increasing belligerency between imperialist countries.
Lenin’s emphasi...
