Zhu Yakun: A Comparison of Lenin's and Bukharin's Theories of Imperialism
The formulation of Lenin’s theory of imperialism serves as the core symbol of the Marxist theory of imperialism entering its mature stage. However, research within Chinese academic circles regarding the intellectual relationship between Lenin and contemporary theorists—particularly Bukharin—concerning the discourse on imperialism requires further deepening. Some scholars in foreign academia tend to one-sidedly emphasize Bukharin’s influence on Lenin, even suggesting that Bukharin was the true founder of the Marxist theory of imperialism. This has led to the erroneous perception and an attitude of political nihilism that negates Lenin and his theoretical contributions. Such views not only affect a rational judgment of Lenin’s theory of imperialism and its historical status but also impede a scientific understanding of the entire Marxist theoretical system of imperialism and its developmental trajectory. Therefore, this article will focus on analyzing the commonalities and differences in the thinking of Lenin and Bukharin regarding imperialism. It will comprehensively examine their intellectual relationship, map out their respective contributions to the development of the Marxist theory of imperialism, and further reaffirm Lenin’s unique contributions and multidimensional aims [1] in this field.
I. Commonalities Between Lenin and Bukharin Concerning the Theory of Imperialism
At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a series of new problems and conditions arising from the development of capitalism became the common issues of the era faced and concerned by Marxists of the time. Built upon a shared Marxist standpoint, the theoretical examinations of the problems of the imperialist era by Lenin and Bukharin manifested a series of common concerns.
(1) Identical analytical entry points regarding imperialism
In their analysis of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin began by analyzing the roots of the First World War. War is the continuation of politics; politics is based on the economy; and imperialist war is the concentrated expression of the struggle to seize and maintain the political and economic interests of the bourgeoisie. To reveal the economic and political essence of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin used the analysis of imperialist war as their entry point.
In the opening of his book World Economy and Imperialism, Bukharin stated that the struggle between nation-states is nothing more than the struggle between the bourgeois groups of these states. This struggle and conflict do not emerge from thin air; rather, they are determined by the specific environment in which the "national economic organism" lives and develops. Each "national economic organism" is not isolated but is a constituent part of the world economy. In the preface Lenin wrote for Bukharin’s World Economy and Imperialism, he first affirmed the great significance of Bukharin’s research and highly endorsed Bukharin's approach of understanding the issues of the imperialist era by starting with an analysis of the roots of the imperialist war. Lenin pointed out that in the field of economic science researching changes in contemporary forms of capitalism, the problem of imperialism is the most important. "Naturally, there can be no talk of a concrete historical evaluation of the current war if it is not based on a thorough clarification of the essence of imperialism, both in its economic and political aspects." In fact, shortly after the outbreak of the First World War, Lenin profoundly pointed out in The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War: "This European and world war has the clearly defined character of a bourgeois, imperialist, and dynastic war." Later, in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (A Popular Outline) (hereafter referred to as Imperialism), he scientifically proved that the First World War was an imperialist war waged by imperialist powers for the re-division of the world and colonies, and for the division of spheres of influence for finance capital. It was by no means a war of "patriotism" or "nationalism" for the "defense of the fatherland," as whitewashed by the bourgeoisie and the opportunists.
From this, it can be seen that both Lenin and Bukharin were keenly aware of the extreme importance of studying imperialism. They agreed that imperialist war was a historical necessity resulting from the evolution and eventual eruption of the internal contradictions of capitalist development. They advocated revealing the underlying bourgeois economic and political roots through the analysis of imperialist war, thereby jointly opposing the social-chauvinist [2] positions, theories, and methods of the Second International.
(2) Identical analysis of the historical origins of imperialism
Regarding the dissection of the historical origins of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin dialectically recognized that it is the historical product of the movement of the basic contradictions of capitalism.
The theoretical significance of this assertion is mainly reflected in two aspects. On the one hand, the emergence of imperialism is not a rupture in the history of capitalist development but its historical continuation. Capitalist production and expanded reproduction constitute the historical main line and basic trend of modern world development, and imperialism is the inevitable product of the development of the internal basic contradictions of capitalism. As Lenin pointed out: "Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general." That is to say, imperialism is endogenous to capitalism rather than an external attachment; it is a historical product of the evolution of its basic contradictions rather than caused by the intervention of accidental factors. Imperialism is not external to capitalism; it is itself a deepened form of capitalism, which can be termed capital-imperialism. On the other hand, imperialism is a specific historical category. Lenin observed that imperialism emerged at a certain stage in the development of exchange and large-scale production, roughly at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. At that time, "exchange brought about the internationalization of economic relations and the internationalization of capital, and large-scale production reached such vast proportions that free competition began to be replaced by monopoly." In Bukharin's view, a great contradiction exists between the internationalization of capital and the nationalization of capitalist interests. Imperialism is the product and concentrated expression of this contradiction: "Imperialist policy appears only at a certain stage of historical development. At this stage, various contradictions of capitalism are entangled into a single knot."
By pointing out that imperialism is a historical product of capitalist development and insisting on examining its emergence and development from a historical perspective, Lenin and Bukharin concretely manifested the adherence of Marxists to the basic viewpoints of historical materialism.
(3) Identical grasp of the core characteristics of imperialism
Regarding the core characteristics of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin focused on monopoly, finance capital, and their social roles.
To them, imperialism possesses not only the general characteristics of capitalism but also its own historical specificity. Along with the continuous improvement of the level of social productive forces, capital became increasingly concentrated, leading to the creation of monopolies which replaced free competition to occupy a decisive position. In this process, the role of banks became increasingly prominent, and finance capital grew stronger and stronger, merging with industrial capital to grow into the core engine driving capital. The relationship of capital interests between states became increasingly tense, thereby triggering various conflicts of varying degrees. Lenin pointed out that monopoly is the deepest economic foundation of imperialism and the latest achievement of capitalism reaching its newest stage. "What is typical is no longer a 'freely' competing enterprise (within the country and in international relations), but entrepreneurial monopoly alliances, trusts. The typical world 'master' is already finance capital." Finance capital is detached from direct production; it is extremely mobile and highly concentrated, with financial monopoly groups holding the fate of the world in their hands. Bukharin similarly abstracted the special category of finance capital from the broad and deep development of monopoly organizations. He believed that the emergence of monopoly organizations such as cartels and trusts originated from the internationalization of bank capital and the change in the role of banks. Finance capital is the mixed growth of bank capital and industrial capital. Imperialism "supports the structure of finance capital; it subjects the whole world to the rule of finance capital; it replaces ancient precapitalist production relations and old capitalist production relations with the production relations of finance capital."
In short, both Lenin and Bukharin attached great importance to the social role of monopoly and finance capital in the era of imperialism, viewing them as social gravitational forces distinct from the era of free-competition capitalism.
(4) Identical general analysis of imperialism
In their general analysis of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin agreed to view imperialism as a world system. By the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, imperialism had grown into a worldwide system. Not only had monopoly organizations such as trusts, cartels, and syndicates spread across advanced capitalist countries, but the system of capital exploitation by developed capitalist countries against backward regions, countries, or nations had also taken shape. Imperialism had developed into a system encompassing all parts of the world.
Bukharin pointed out that world capitalism—namely, a worldwide system of production—had developed and formed new systemic characteristics. On one hand were a small number of powerful capitalist countries organized into strong economies; on the other hand were the peripheral agricultural or semi-agricultural underdeveloped countries. These two aspects constituted the imperialist world system, "because imperialism is not only a system most closely integrated with modern capitalism, but also an essential element of modern capitalism." Lenin highly affirmed the scientific significance of Bukharin's approach of viewing imperialism as a whole and as a certain stage of capitalist development. He similarly demonstrated that at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, "imperialism has grown from an embryonic state into a dominant system, capitalist monopolies occupy the primary position in the national economy and politics, and the division of the world is complete." The era of imperialism had forged and in fact demonstrated that "capitalism has become a world system of colonial oppression and financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries."
Thus, it can be seen that both Lenin and Bukharin viewed imperialism as a world system. They believed that the formation of the imperialist world system meant the creation of a global structure of capital exploitation. This system would inevitably cause—and had already caused—world wars, and imperialist war would ultimately trigger the social revolution of the proletariat.
(5) Identical judgment on the development trends of imperialism
Regarding the judgment of the development trends of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin emphasized that imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat. Both opposed Kautsky’s theory of "ultra-imperialism," yet both dialectically observed the possibility of further development for capitalism.
For revolutionary Marxists, imperialism is not only an economic issue but also a political one. Lenin profoundly pointed out that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalist development and the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat; following the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, it must inevitably turn into its opposite. At the same time, Lenin also observed: "Imperialism is moribund but not yet completely decayed capitalism; it is dying but not yet dead capitalism." This view was endorsed by Bukharin, who affirmatively pointed out: "Although the final stage of capitalism, the stage of imperialism, reveals symptoms of increasing internal decay, and although parasitic tendencies manifest themselves more and more strongly within the capitalist system, nevertheless, in a series of capitalist countries, especially in the most recent period, powerful productive forces are developing after all, and technology is growing."
Both Lenin and Bukharin criticized Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism [3]. They agreed that ultra-imperialism could not be realized, or that before it could be realized, imperialism would collapse and the proletarian social revolution would arrive. Bukharin pointed out that what Kautsky preached was opportunism and out-and-out revisionist theory because class contradictions in the era of finance capital were becoming increasingly acute and class antagonism reached an unprecedented height. Once the state becomes the direct entrepreneur and organizer of production, the myth of the so-called "supra-class state" disappears from people's consciousness: "Thus there appears the crisis of imperialism and the rebirth of proletarian socialism." Similarly, Lenin criticized Kautsky for severing the dialectical relationship between the economy and politics of imperialism, arguing that Kautsky’s theory was in fact a petty-bourgeois fantasy detached from reality. At the same time, Lenin also realized that a gap existed between the theoretical possibility of the formation of a world trust and the complexity of reality. He focused more on reality as a starting point: "That is to say, before the emergence of a unified world trust—the 'ultra-imperialist' world union of the finance capital of all countries—imperialism must inevitably collapse, and capitalism will certainly transform into its opposite." He emphasized that the event most likely to trigger a revolution and form a breakthrough in the development of world history would certainly be at the "weakest link" of the imperialist system. The Russian October Revolution was precisely a proletarian social revolution that erupted and achieved victory at the weakest link of the imperialist system, thereby igniting the fire of hope for world revolution.
The commonalities between Lenin and Bukharin's theories of imperialism demonstrate that both theorists, from a Marxist standpoint, perspective, and method, confronted the shared epochal problem of world economic and political development at the turn of the 20th century, particularly the immense impact of the First World War. This highlights their shared historical mission and reveals that both were influenced by common intellectual resources; for instance, both were deeply influenced by Rudolf Hilferding’s theory of finance capital and adopted his relevant analyses, albeit to varying degrees of appropriation.
II. Differences Between Lenin and Bukharin Regarding Imperialism Theory
As analyzed previously, while Lenin and Bukharin shared common focal points in their research on imperialism and reached several identical conclusions, differences existed between them, primarily manifested in their distinct analytical approaches and theoretical emphases. This reflects the pluralistic forms of development within the Marxist theory of imperialism.
(1) Differing Definitions of Imperialism
In grasping the definition of imperialism, Lenin viewed it as a specific historical stage of capitalist development, whereas Bukharin tended to see it more as a policy of finance capital.
Both Lenin and Bukharin regarded imperialism as a historical category, but their definitions differed significantly. Lenin pointed out: "Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: (1) imperialism is monopoly capitalism; (2) imperialism is parasitic, or decaying capitalism; (3) imperialism is moribund capitalism." This is the perspective of a theory of historical stages. Bukharin was different; he placed greater emphasis on imperialism as an aggressive policy adopted by finance capital, defining it from the perspective of a theory of policy. Whether in his 1915 work World Economy and Imperialism or his 1920 work The ABC of Communism, Bukharin considered imperialism to be the policy of finance capital: "The policy of conquest which finance capital pursues in the struggle for markets for the sale of goods, for markets for raw materials, and for spheres of investment, is called imperialism." This represents a substantive difference from Lenin's definition, for although Lenin had also employed "imperialist policy" rhetoric in his early writings, he placed greater emphasis on the theory of stages.
Furthermore, regarding the determination of when imperialism was established, Lenin provided a more scientifically rigorous analysis of the development of the "cartelization" of the capitalist economy and identified the turn of the 20th century as the crucial moment of its final consolidation. Bukharin, however, did not precisely define the historical period of imperialism's establishment, stating: "Just as finance capitalism... is a historically limited epoch, confined to the last few decades, so imperialism, as the policy of finance capital, is a specific historical category." This vague demarcation arose primarily because of the inherent limitations of Bukharin's view of imperialism understood through the lens of policy.
(2) Differing Understandings of Competition and Monopoly under Imperialism
Regarding the relationship between monopoly and competition under imperialism, Lenin dialectically observed that imperialist monopoly did not eliminate competition, while Bukharin one-sidedly believed that internal competition within capitalism had been eliminated while external competition had intensified.
In Lenin's view, imperialist monopoly did not eliminate competition: "Imperialism has not, and could not, fundamentally transform capitalism. Imperialism complicates and sharpens the contradictions of capitalism; it 'intermingles' monopoly with free competition, but it cannot do away with exchange, the market, competition, crises, etc." This thesis of Lenin's is highly realistic because the uneven economic and political development of imperialism is reflected not only in the world market but also in domestic markets. Lenin further pointed out: "It is the combination of these two contradictory 'principles'—competition and monopoly—that is the essence of imperialism; it is this very combination which is preparing the collapse, i.e., the socialist revolution." Lenin combined competition and monopoly rather than viewing the inner essence of imperialism as fragmented, thereby revealing the origins of capitalist collapse and socialist revolution within this combination.
Bukharin, however, viewed the emergence and development of state capitalism in an idealized and one-sided manner. He argued: "What does state capitalism mean from the point of view of competition? It means the disappearance of competition within the capitalist country and the maximal sharpening of competition between various capitalist countries." This line of analysis is non-dialectical and inconsistent with reality. Imperialism did not eliminate competition; within and outside imperialist countries, various forms of competition exist, and have even become more intense and organized. Monopoly coexists and intertwines with competition. Bukharin's theory of the disappearance of internal competition was erroneous; its root lay in his adherence to the false premise of a "pure" state-capitalist trust, failing to see the complexity, long-term nature, and specificity of the contradictory movement between capitalist productive forces and relations of production.
(3) Differing Understandings of the State in the Era of Imperialism
Regarding the question of the state in the era of imperialism, Lenin dialectically focused on the various forms of state dependence—the transitions between imperialist powers and colonies or semi-colonies—whereas Bukharin leaned more toward examining the pole of the imperialist state itself.
To serve the interests of monopoly groups, imperialist states continuously practiced imperialist politics characterized by plundering colonies and semi-colonies, oppressing weak nations, and suppressing proletarian labor movements. Lenin keenly observed the various transitional state forms of the imperialist colonial era. Besides the two typical categories of metropolitan powers and colonies, there were various forms of dependent nations which, while politically and formally independent, were actually entangled in a web of financial and diplomatic dependence. These included semi-colonial countries such as Persia, China, and Turkey; commercial colonies like Argentina, which was financially dependent on Britain despite lacking political independence; and types like Portugal, which was politically independent but financially and diplomatically dependent. Lenin believed that changes in state form were designed to better serve the interests of finance capital and monopolies; as long as it satisfied this purpose, any transitional state form could be invented or manufactured for the rule and exploitation of finance capital. "Finance capital and the corresponding international policy... which is the struggle of the Great Powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence."
Bukharin did not investigate the complex state forms of the imperialist era as comprehensively or in as much detail as Lenin did. Instead, he examined the integrated form of the imperialist pole in a rather singular manner, focusing more on the development of the imperialist state itself. In his view, the state power of the imperialist era comprehensively strengthened its interference in production, exchange, and ideology, following the logic of state capitalism, "characterized by an extreme complexity of functions and a violent intrusion into the economic life of society. It manifests a tendency to grasp the whole field of production and the whole field of commodity circulation." Thus, the role, function, and mechanism of the state underwent profound transformations, directly subordinating it to the monopoly bourgeoisie for blatant, holistic exploitation. A massive, all-encompassing state machine was formed—the modern imperialist predatory state. It was only later, with the in-depth development of the world revolution and Bukharin’s assumption of high-ranking positions in the Comintern [4], that he profoundly realized the differences in revolutionary paths between colonial countries with and without a powerful proletariat.
(4) Differing Understandings of the Relationship between Imperialism, Nationhood, and Colonies
Regarding the relationship between imperialism and the national and colonial questions, Lenin comprehensively considered the common problems of imperialism alongside the specificities of national and colonial issues, while Bukharin’s understanding of this deepened gradually alongside the development of revolutionary practice. The different concerns held by Lenin and Bukharin regarding imperialist state forms reflected, to some extent, the differences in their understanding of imperialism and the national and colonial questions.
For Lenin, both colonial policy and imperialism were inevitable products of the development of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Various struggles would inevitably occur between imperialist nations and colonial or semi-colonial nations or peoples, and these struggles would become increasingly broad and sharp: "Imperialism is the 'enslavement' of nations, the 'enslavement' of all the nations of the world by a handful of 'Great Powers'." The revolutionary proletariat and its party must lead the masses to overthrow imperialism, thereby achieving peace without annexations—that is, the maximum elimination of imperialist colonial policy. Furthermore, Lenin recognized the intertwined forms of imperialism and nationalism, such as social chauvinism [5]. Imperialist states often used the slogan of "defending the fatherland," wearing a nationalist mask to hide their true face of exploiting and enslaving the other backward nations and countries of the world. It was precisely based on this specific historical background of the imperialist era that Lenin resolutely advocated: "We must link the revolutionary struggle for socialism with a revolutionary program on the national question."
Bukharin, by contrast, tended primarily to focus on the major role of the imperialist state in the world economy and the internal contradictions between the internationalization and nationalization of imperialist capital. In his early period, he overlooked the complexity and variations of the national and colonial questions. Later, with the development of Comintern practice, Bukharin gradually realized the importance of these questions and highly affirmed the unique significance of these elements within Lenin’s theory of imperialism, noting: "Directly belonging to this general problem is another question that has not been answered in any theoretical book. This is the national question and the colonial question." Subsequently, he continued Lenin's relevant reflections, attaching great importance to the issue of the leadership [6] of the proletariat and its party in the democratic revolution within colonies and semi-colonies.
The differences between Lenin and Bukharin in their theories of imperialism illustrate the actual complexity of the historical development of imperialism, the differing degrees of their grasp of world proletarian revolutionary practice, and the pluralistic forms and distinct analytical paths presented in the development of the Marxist theory of imperialism.
III. The Intellectual Relationship Between Lenin and Bukharin Regarding Imperialism Theory
From the perspective of intellectual history, theorists such as Lenin, Bukharin, and Rosa Luxemburg all contributed to the formation and development of the Marxist theory of imperialism. Lenin was the great synthesizer [7] among them, and it was he who elevated the Marxist theory of imperialism to a level of scientific and systematic rigor. The intellectual relationship between Lenin and Bukharin's theories of imperialism is primarily manifested in the four following ways.
(1) Chronological Relationship of Texts
The conclusion drawn by some Western scholars—that Bukharin studied and analyzed the problem of imperialism earlier than Lenin simply by comparing the writing dates of Bukharin’s World Economy and Imperialism and Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism—is not rigorous. For instance, Sidney Heitman once pointed out that Bukharin’s World Economy and Imperialism was published a year before Lenin’s Imperialism, and that "the main ideas Bukharin expressed in this article were reflected a year later in Lenin’s major work... Lenin’s work is largely indebted to Bukharin’s research and conclusions."
In fact, Heitman’s conclusion is biased. An examination of the texts clearly shows that, on the one hand, Lenin’s attention to the phenomenon of imperialism preceded Bukharin’s by a considerable margin. Scattered expressions by Lenin regarding the problem of imperialism can be traced back to texts such as "Draft Programme of the Social-Democratic Party" (1895), "The War in China" (1900), "The Lessons of the Crisis" (1901), "Marxism and Revisionism" (1908), and "Concentration of Production in Russia" (1912). In August 1904, Lenin even set about translating J.A. Hobson’s Imperialism (the manuscript of which has not yet been found) and cited Hobson’s relevant arguments and evidence multiple times in his own book Imperialism. Bukharin's research on the theory of imperialism was conducted after the outbreak of the First World War; the evidence for his earlier research on this theme is his article on world economy and imperialism published in the magazine Kommunist in September 1915.
On the other hand, Lenin’s theoretical analysis of imperialism predates Bukharin’s. Lenin’s concentrated discourse on the problem of imperialism is reflected in his 1914 article "Report on the Proletariat and the War," and his 1915 works such as "The First of May and the War," "The Collapse of the Second International," "Socialism and War," and "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe." For instance, in "Report on the Proletariat and the War," Lenin had already profoundly pointed out: "The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century are characterized by imperialist politics... Imperialism is that state of capitalism which, having done all that it could do, is turning toward decline." This fully reflects that Lenin was already analyzing the phenomenon of imperialism well before Bukharin completed World Economy and Imperialism.
Bukharin conducted his more in-depth analyses of the problem of imperialism primarily in works such as World Economy and Imperialism (1915), The Imperialist Pirate State (1916), The Economics of the Transition Period (1920), and Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital (1925). His research greatly enriched and developed the Marxist theory of imperialism.
(2) Relationships of Intellectual Borrowing
Some Western scholars one-sidedly emphasize that the formulation of Lenin’s theory of imperialism was primarily influenced by Bukharin. For example, David McLellan once pointed out that Lenin’s Imperialism was not a highly original work; while he specifically referenced the theories of Hobson and Hilferding, his more direct source was Bukharin’s World Economy and Imperialism, which was written several months before Lenin’s Imperialism was published.
McLellan’s conclusion is superficial and one-sided. Objectively speaking, the intellectual resources Lenin drew upon for his theory of imperialism were extremely abundant; Bukharin’s theory was one of them, but it was neither the primary nor the sole source of influence. The material utilized in Lenin’s Imperialism is quite extensive, referencing 148 books and 232 articles in German, French, English, and Russian, involving statistical data from imperialist countries and the research findings of bourgeois scholars. In this book, Lenin directly cites the discourses of Hobson and Hilferding more frequently than those of Bukharin. While Lenin did indeed absorb some beneficial ideas from Bukharin, the latter's influence was not the most significant. For example, in the section "Banks and Their New Role" in Imperialism, Lenin mentions Bukharin: "Thus, on the one hand, there is the growing merger, or, as N. I. Bukharin aptly puts it, coalescence, of bank and industrial capital and, on the other hand, the growth of the banks into institutions of a truly 'universal character'."
At the same time, Bukharin also actively borrowed from Lenin’s discourses on imperialism. In 1917, while supplementing World Economy and Imperialism, he cited a table compiled by Lenin regarding the distribution of "the world economy and the colonial territories of the imperialist powers." Later, he also adopted Lenin’s definition of imperialism as the final stage of capitalism, indicating a major shift in Bukharin’s own theory of imperialism.
It should be recognized that the series of economic, political, and social conditions that emerged as capitalism developed into the imperialist stage directly impelled Lenin, Bukharin, and others to investigate the problem of imperialism. This was a requirement of the era and of history; the mutual borrowing of ideas between them was not only possible but necessary.
(3) Relationships of Methodological Critique
The scientific nature of the Marxist theory of imperialism concerns not only basic viewpoints but also the application of method. Some Western scholars have failed to realize profoundly the differing degrees to which Lenin and Bukharin mastered dialectical materialism and the resulting impact on their theoretical constructions.
Lenin systematically studied and mastered dialectical materialism, and it was precisely because he adhered to a scientific methodology that he was able to push the study of the Marxist theory of imperialism into a scientific and systematic stage. Conversely, Bukharin’s theory of imperialism, in terms of the theory itself, contained immature and non-dialectical elements. For instance, the aforementioned analysis of his idea regarding the elimination of competitive relations within imperialist states was related to his temporary failure to fully master dialectical materialism. Lenin once commented: "Bukharin is not only the most valuable and biggest theoretician of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favorite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it)." Bukharin later took Lenin’s criticism to heart, focusing his research on the problems of Marxist dialectics and writing the book Philosophical Arabesques [8]. In this book, Bukharin spoke highly of Lenin’s brilliant analysis of capitalism and imperialism: "These scientific masterpieces are most perfect from the point of view of their dialectical depth and the sharpness of the movement of their structures; they lead a complex situation toward the future."
It can be seen that in the developmental process of Bukharin’s relevant theories, there was a dimension of methodological reflection, which was not unrelated to Lenin’s constructive criticism of him.
(4) Relationships of Theoretical Transcendence
Some Western scholars have failed to provide a complete account of the intellectual relationship between the theories of imperialism of Lenin and those of his contemporaries, and have even subjectively and one-sidedly denied the originality of Lenin’s theory. For example, Stephen Cohen selectively emphasizes that Bukharin’s World Economy and Imperialism was a landmark achievement, arguing that the book was the first systematic Bolshevik exposition of the problem of imperialism and that its relevant content or ideas were adopted in large quantities by Lenin in Imperialism.
Cohen’s view lacks rigor. In fact, based on a dialectical examination of the era of imperialism, Lenin actively borrowed beneficial analyses from Bukharin, Luxemburg, and others, further deepening and expanding the relevant reflections. Zheng Yifan [9] pointed out: "In his research on imperialism and the state, Lenin absorbed certain research results from Bukharin and deepened the research on this basis, thereby creatively developing Marxism." Compared to Bukharin, Lenin was more of a revolutionary realist; he strove to open a political path for transforming the real world within the complex relationship between theory and practice, whereas Bukharin remained more at the level of abstract theoretical reflection on the problem of imperialism and its development. Lenin was 18 years older than Bukharin, and Bukharin held Lenin in the utmost respect; even though there were many debates between the two, Lenin remained full of expectations for Bukharin. After Lenin’s death, Bukharin continued his research on the imperialist state, capitalist accumulation, and the national-democratic revolutions in colonies and semi-colonies, further deepening his study of imperialism. This, to a certain extent, enriched and developed Lenin’s theory of imperialism and made a very positive contribution to promoting the development of the Marxist theory of imperialism and the doctrine of the state.
IV. Reaffirming the Unique Contributions and Multidimensional Purport of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism
The above analysis demonstrates that in their research on imperialism, Lenin and Bukharin reached identical conclusions but also had differences, which could be mutually reinforcing. Whether starting from textual facts, the application of dialectical materialism, or the integrity of the theory, Lenin answered the questions of the imperialist era earlier, more comprehensively and profoundly, and in a more systematic and scientific manner than Bukharin. He powerfully impelled the Marxist theory of imperialism into a mature stage and established a classic interpretive paradigm. Lenin is, without a doubt, a vital founder of the Marxist theory of imperialism. The practice of some Western scholars to diminish or even deny Lenin’s theory by one-sidedly inflating or selectively capturing Bukharin’s theory is entirely untenable. Lenin’s theory of imperialism holds an indisputable historical position and contemporary value in the developmental process of Marxist theory and practice and in the history of the international communist movement. The multidimensional purport of this theory deserves reaffirmation.
First, regarding theoretical development, Lenin upheld the political-economic analytical path of Marx and Engels. He focused on investigating the movement of contradictions between the productive forces and relations of production—and their various manifestations—during the new stage of capitalist development, namely, the stage of monopoly capitalism. He profoundly revealed that monopoly is an inherent characteristic of capitalism with ontological significance, analyzed in depth the historical origin, realistic role, and developmental trends of finance capital, and proposed the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, further enriching and developing Marxist political economy and scientific socialism.
Second, regarding historical contribution, Lenin’s theory specified that imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat. He advocated for the timely "transformation of imperialist war into civil war," which powerfully promoted the occurrence and development of the Russian February Revolution and the October Revolution. Through the exemplary influence of the October Revolution and the promotion of the Comintern, Lenin’s theory played a positive guiding and promoting role in the national liberation movements and the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggles of colonies and semi-colonies. This point was simultaneously proven by the successful revolutionary practice of the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people to establish the People's Republic of China, thoroughly breaking through the imperialist front in the East.
Third, regarding realistic understanding, Lenin’s theory profoundly elucidated monopoly as the important economic base of the imperialist era and finance capital as its primary form of capital. These basic assertions provide an important theoretical reference for scrutinizing the financialization of the capitalist economy and financial crises in the era of globalization. The current era is not far removed from Lenin’s; the crises of the imperialist era have deepened further, and various forms of monopolies and monopoly organizations, the degree of global economic financialization, and the degree of the rule of finance capital are even greater than in Lenin’s time. The present era remains the era of finance monopoly capitalism, and Lenin’s theory continues to have profound guiding significance in the contemporary world.
Fourth, regarding the practical path, Lenin’s theory not only profoundly revealed a series of essential characteristics and basic contradictions of the era of finance monopoly capitalism but also pointed out the practical essence of this theory: namely, to criticize, oppose, and transcend imperialism. Imperialism is not only history but also reality. Contemporary imperialism will certainly persist for a considerable period, and world social intercourse will inevitably expand and deepen as the degree of globalization continues to rise. On the one hand, the occurrence and evolution of the international financial crisis have already shown that the internal contradictions and conflicts of imperialism have reached a new depth; on the other hand, the forces of world socialism are continuously strengthening. The practical essence of Lenin's theory provides a path of reference and spiritual leadership for further transcending imperialism under new historical conditions.
(Affiliation: School of Marxism, Sun Yat-sen University) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 6, 2021