One of Lenin's more overrated works. This is partly due to the fact that people read it as a theoretical sacred text, when it is actually (as stated in the subtitle) a "review," meaning a review of the then-existing most current literature on imperialism with an eye to creating a political argument for intervening in the key battles of the day. As such, Lenin develops such problematic notions as the underconsumptionist impulse towards empire (history has shown that the domestic mark... (show more)

One of Lenin's more overrated works. This is partly due to the fact that people read it as a theoretical sacred text, when it is actually (as stated in the subtitle) a "review," meaning a review of the then-existing most current literature on imperialism with an eye to creating a political argument for intervening in the key battles of the day. As such, Lenin develops such problematic notions as the underconsumptionist impulse towards empire (history has shown that the domestic market can expand quite a lot without necessitating outward expansion), and the bought-off "labor aristocracy (which has been used as a facile way simply to write off white skilled workers as part of the revolutionary working class). Of course, it's still important to read, but it's important to be aware of its context and shortcomings. (show less)

According to Lenin, a capitalist economy centralizes industry and banking, finance capital becomes exported, and national centers of capital compete for dominance. Ineluctably, productive forces are aligned on one side, and colonies of raw materials dominated by finance capital are situated on the other. War will only result as capitalist states are compelled to redress the fissure.

As far as Lenin’s historical scheme is concerned, several points can be noted. Capital flows from France went ... (show more)

According to Lenin, a capitalist economy centralizes industry and banking, finance capital becomes exported, and national centers of capital compete for dominance. Ineluctably, productive forces are aligned on one side, and colonies of raw materials dominated by finance capital are situated on the other. War will only result as capitalist states are compelled to redress the fissure.

As far as Lenin’s historical scheme is concerned, several points can be noted. Capital flows from France went overwhelmingly to Russia where profits could be made during that period, not to her colonies. Some blame Britain for undermining Argentina’s economy with capital investment — but one forgets — the favorite target for British capital in the 19th century was the United States of America. The current financial relationship between the U.S. and Japan has not brought upon imperialism. In addition, with the earlier Portuguese empire — the cost of policing their empire was actually greater than the benefit of their far-flung gains, leading to its demise. Dutch imperialism faltered in the 18th century — though Indonesia was retained until the 20th — because her prosperity was based upon tight control of the Baltic. In addition, there are plenty of examples of anti-capitalist imperialism, from the USSR in Eastern Europe to the Chinese in Tibet. These are just a few of many examples that confront the Marxist-Leninist, and ultimately, your standard anti-war protester. (show less)