What do you think?
Rate this book
Ιμπεριαλισμός και παγκόσμια οικονομία
Το κλασσικό αυτό έργο του Μπουχάριν που γράφτηκε το 1915, όταν μαινόταν ο Α΄ Παγκόσμιος Πόλεμος. Για τον Μπουχάριν, η αιτία αυτής της τιτάνιας σύγκρουσης ήταν ο ίδιος ο καπιταλισμός. Οι αντιθέσεις ανάμεσα στα τεράστια κρατικο- καπιταλιστικά τραστ που είχαν κυριαρχήσει σε ολόκληρες εθνικές οικονομίες, εκφράζονταν στο επίπεδο των στρατιωτικών ανταγωνισμών και στον πόλεμο για την κυριαρχία σε μια διεθνοποιημένη παγκόσμια αγορά. (Από την παρουσίαση της έκδοσης)
312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1917
8 people are currently reading
612 people want to read
About the author
Nikolai Bukharin
195 books67 followersNikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet politician, advocated gradual agricultural collectivization; after the last "show trial" of Moscow of the 1930s for treason, people executed him.
Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, a Russian prolific author, wrote on theory.
As a young man, he spent six years in exile, worked closely with Vladimir Ilich Lenin and Leon Trotsky. After February 1917, he returned, his credentials earned him a high rank in the party, and after the October, he served as editor of Pravda, the newspaper.
Within the bitterly divide, his move to the right as a defender of the new economy, positioned him favorably as chief ally of Joseph Stalin, and from the party leadership, they together ousted Trotsky, Grigori Evseyevich Zinoviev, and Lev Borisovich Kamenev. From 1926, Bukharin enjoyed great power as general secretary of committee of Comintern to 1929. Nevertheless, decision of Stalin to proceed drove the two men apart, and the Politburo expelled Bukharin.
When the purges began in 1936, Joseph Stalin for pretext liquidated his former allies and rivals for power, and some letters, conversations, and tapped phone calls of Bukharin indicated disloyalty. People arrested him in February 1937, and charged conspiracy to overthrow the state. Proceedings alienated many western Communist sympathizers.
Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, a Russian prolific author, wrote on theory.
As a young man, he spent six years in exile, worked closely with Vladimir Ilich Lenin and Leon Trotsky. After February 1917, he returned, his credentials earned him a high rank in the party, and after the October, he served as editor of Pravda, the newspaper.
Within the bitterly divide, his move to the right as a defender of the new economy, positioned him favorably as chief ally of Joseph Stalin, and from the party leadership, they together ousted Trotsky, Grigori Evseyevich Zinoviev, and Lev Borisovich Kamenev. From 1926, Bukharin enjoyed great power as general secretary of committee of Comintern to 1929. Nevertheless, decision of Stalin to proceed drove the two men apart, and the Politburo expelled Bukharin.
When the purges began in 1936, Joseph Stalin for pretext liquidated his former allies and rivals for power, and some letters, conversations, and tapped phone calls of Bukharin indicated disloyalty. People arrested him in February 1937, and charged conspiracy to overthrow the state. Proceedings alienated many western Communist sympathizers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
March 23, 2023
This holds up really well I thought. Much clearer and sharper than Lenin’s booklet. Bukharin is concerned with capitalist competition on the world market and how that inevitably ropes in states.
In a refreshing rejection of methodological nationalism, competition on the world market is presented as the basis for the necessity of geopolitical rivalry and warfare in globalized capitalism. That process exhibits two major tendencies: the growing interdependence between nations and national capitals, and the counter-tendency of the division into national spheres (i.e. the internationalization and nationalization of capital).
Bukharin’s treatment of the capitalist state here is both too simplistic and much deeper than other classical marxists. On the one hand, he basically considers the growth of finance capital so developed that domestic competition has all but ceased and national capitalists interact with their states in an instrumental way, which is clearly wrong. I’m also not sure about his “state capitalist trust” argument, which doesn’t seem to be central to the argument. However, by starting from the world market, he’s able to show in much more concrete depth the mechanisms by which capitalist states are necessarily caught up in anarchic capitalist competition with each other and rival capital blocs. On that note, Bukharin also shows how “monopoly capital” really just means intensified competition, not the disappearance of competition.
If I were to use this for political education, the core of the argument is in chapters 8, 10, and 11, and those could probably be read as a standalone with not too much background needed beyond a basic familiarity with marxist economics.
In a refreshing rejection of methodological nationalism, competition on the world market is presented as the basis for the necessity of geopolitical rivalry and warfare in globalized capitalism. That process exhibits two major tendencies: the growing interdependence between nations and national capitals, and the counter-tendency of the division into national spheres (i.e. the internationalization and nationalization of capital).
Bukharin’s treatment of the capitalist state here is both too simplistic and much deeper than other classical marxists. On the one hand, he basically considers the growth of finance capital so developed that domestic competition has all but ceased and national capitalists interact with their states in an instrumental way, which is clearly wrong. I’m also not sure about his “state capitalist trust” argument, which doesn’t seem to be central to the argument. However, by starting from the world market, he’s able to show in much more concrete depth the mechanisms by which capitalist states are necessarily caught up in anarchic capitalist competition with each other and rival capital blocs. On that note, Bukharin also shows how “monopoly capital” really just means intensified competition, not the disappearance of competition.
If I were to use this for political education, the core of the argument is in chapters 8, 10, and 11, and those could probably be read as a standalone with not too much background needed beyond a basic familiarity with marxist economics.
January 21, 2026
Nikolai Bukharin’s Imperialism and the World Economy (1915) stands as one of the foundational Marxist analyses of imperialism produced during the First World War. Written in close intellectual proximity to Vladimir Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Bukharin’s work provides a more systematic and theoretically rigorous account of the transformation of capitalism into a global system dominated by monopoly, finance capital, and interstate rivalry. Although less widely read outside Marxist scholarship than Lenin’s pamphlet, Bukharin’s study remains of enduring importance for political economy, international relations theory, and the historical understanding of capitalist globalization.
Bukharin’s central argument is that the development of capitalism leads simultaneously to economic internationalization and political-national consolidation. On the one hand, capitalist production and exchange increasingly transcend national boundaries, producing an integrated world economy characterized by global markets for commodities, capital, and labor. On the other hand, this very process intensifies the role of the nation-state, which becomes the primary instrument through which nationally organized capital competes on the world stage. Imperialism, in Bukharin’s formulation, is not merely a policy choice or moral aberration but a structural outcome of advanced capitalism, arising from the fusion of monopoly capital and state power.
A key contribution of the book lies in its analysis of monopoly and finance capital. Drawing on and extending the work of Rudolf Hilferding, Bukharin argues that the concentration and centralization of capital produce large-scale monopolistic enterprises closely linked to banking capital. These formations increasingly depend on state support—through tariffs, colonial expansion, and military power—to secure markets, raw materials, and investment outlets. As a result, competition shifts from the level of individual firms to that of states themselves, transforming international relations into a struggle among “state-capitalist trusts.” War, therefore, is not an accidental or irrational outcome but an inherent tendency of the imperialist stage of capitalism.
Bukharin’s treatment of the state is among the most theoretically ambitious aspects of the work. He conceptualizes the modern state as a collective capitalist, coordinating and defending the interests of national capital as a whole. This perspective anticipates later theories of state capitalism and challenges more instrumental or reductionist views of the state in Marxist theory. At the same time, Bukharin insists on the contradictory nature of imperialism: the global integration of production creates the material basis for socialism, even as political fragmentation and militarism generate unprecedented levels of destruction.
Methodologically, Imperialism and the World Economy is notable for its synthesis of political economy and geopolitics. Bukharin moves beyond purely economic explanations to examine how legal structures, military organization, and national ideology interact with capitalist accumulation. His emphasis on systemic rivalry among great powers foreshadows later realist and world-systems approaches, even as his analysis remains firmly grounded in Marxist categories of class, surplus value, and accumulation.
Despite its strengths, the book is not without limitations. Bukharin’s confidence in the inevitability of socialist transformation reflects the revolutionary optimism of its historical moment and underestimates capitalism’s capacity for adaptation. Moreover, his focus on inter-imperialist rivalry pays relatively little attention to the agency of colonized societies, an omission that later Marxist and postcolonial scholars would seek to correct. The dense and polemical style of the text, shaped by its origins in wartime debate, may also present challenges to contemporary readers.
Nevertheless, Imperialism and the World Economy remains a landmark contribution to the theory of imperialism. Its conceptualization of the world economy as a unified yet conflict-ridden system continues to offer valuable insights into the dynamics of globalization, state power, and war. For scholars of Marxist theory, international political economy, and the history of economic thought, Bukharin’s work is an essential complement to Lenin’s more accessible account and a reminder of the depth and sophistication of early twentieth-century Marxist analysis.
GPT
Bukharin’s central argument is that the development of capitalism leads simultaneously to economic internationalization and political-national consolidation. On the one hand, capitalist production and exchange increasingly transcend national boundaries, producing an integrated world economy characterized by global markets for commodities, capital, and labor. On the other hand, this very process intensifies the role of the nation-state, which becomes the primary instrument through which nationally organized capital competes on the world stage. Imperialism, in Bukharin’s formulation, is not merely a policy choice or moral aberration but a structural outcome of advanced capitalism, arising from the fusion of monopoly capital and state power.
A key contribution of the book lies in its analysis of monopoly and finance capital. Drawing on and extending the work of Rudolf Hilferding, Bukharin argues that the concentration and centralization of capital produce large-scale monopolistic enterprises closely linked to banking capital. These formations increasingly depend on state support—through tariffs, colonial expansion, and military power—to secure markets, raw materials, and investment outlets. As a result, competition shifts from the level of individual firms to that of states themselves, transforming international relations into a struggle among “state-capitalist trusts.” War, therefore, is not an accidental or irrational outcome but an inherent tendency of the imperialist stage of capitalism.
Bukharin’s treatment of the state is among the most theoretically ambitious aspects of the work. He conceptualizes the modern state as a collective capitalist, coordinating and defending the interests of national capital as a whole. This perspective anticipates later theories of state capitalism and challenges more instrumental or reductionist views of the state in Marxist theory. At the same time, Bukharin insists on the contradictory nature of imperialism: the global integration of production creates the material basis for socialism, even as political fragmentation and militarism generate unprecedented levels of destruction.
Methodologically, Imperialism and the World Economy is notable for its synthesis of political economy and geopolitics. Bukharin moves beyond purely economic explanations to examine how legal structures, military organization, and national ideology interact with capitalist accumulation. His emphasis on systemic rivalry among great powers foreshadows later realist and world-systems approaches, even as his analysis remains firmly grounded in Marxist categories of class, surplus value, and accumulation.
Despite its strengths, the book is not without limitations. Bukharin’s confidence in the inevitability of socialist transformation reflects the revolutionary optimism of its historical moment and underestimates capitalism’s capacity for adaptation. Moreover, his focus on inter-imperialist rivalry pays relatively little attention to the agency of colonized societies, an omission that later Marxist and postcolonial scholars would seek to correct. The dense and polemical style of the text, shaped by its origins in wartime debate, may also present challenges to contemporary readers.
Nevertheless, Imperialism and the World Economy remains a landmark contribution to the theory of imperialism. Its conceptualization of the world economy as a unified yet conflict-ridden system continues to offer valuable insights into the dynamics of globalization, state power, and war. For scholars of Marxist theory, international political economy, and the history of economic thought, Bukharin’s work is an essential complement to Lenin’s more accessible account and a reminder of the depth and sophistication of early twentieth-century Marxist analysis.
GPT
October 8, 2013
From my view this book's is considered one of the classic Marxist texts, written in 1915 as an analysis of the development of capitalism as a world system and how this leads to imperialist conflict. It’s been criticized as being outdated by in my opinion, the basis of Bukharin’s theory is still relevant today when allowing for some developments.
I found the text very dense and initially slow to digest, having to read over passages a few times to understand. Partly this is due to the language and the way a lot of Marxists write, in this old fashioned academic style but Bukharin was easier to understand than Lenin, but still harder than say, Trotsky. He explains things with emphasis on the economic and scientific arguments with isn’t my forte and there is less political points made.
The crux of his theory is that as capitalism grows into a world system where businesses are interconnected all over the world, the tendency for businesses to monopolise culminate in trusts within the nation state where nation states act on behalf of the individual capitalists within their borders. The natural competition of capitalism between individual capitalists is then carried through to competition between nation states representing capitalist interests, and this competition is often, but not always, expressed with military conflict. World War I being the prime example, as Bukharin was writing in the middle of it.
Of course, this theory illustrates a general trend and all of the things I tried to explain above are not absolute. There are always countervailing tendencies to these theories that move in other directions without completing rendering the theory null and void.
Bukharin’s theory is of course not iron-tight and there are some disagreements, namely the theory of the ‘Labor aristocracy,’ an idea where workers within the Imperialist nations are bought off with higher than normal wages due to the excess wealth earned through imperialism. Though it’s something I don’t have time to go into. This is a book review after all.
So I was satisfied after completing the book, a dense, challenging but thoroughly rewarding work that has sharpened my understanding of how economics and war are intertwined.
I found the text very dense and initially slow to digest, having to read over passages a few times to understand. Partly this is due to the language and the way a lot of Marxists write, in this old fashioned academic style but Bukharin was easier to understand than Lenin, but still harder than say, Trotsky. He explains things with emphasis on the economic and scientific arguments with isn’t my forte and there is less political points made.
The crux of his theory is that as capitalism grows into a world system where businesses are interconnected all over the world, the tendency for businesses to monopolise culminate in trusts within the nation state where nation states act on behalf of the individual capitalists within their borders. The natural competition of capitalism between individual capitalists is then carried through to competition between nation states representing capitalist interests, and this competition is often, but not always, expressed with military conflict. World War I being the prime example, as Bukharin was writing in the middle of it.
Of course, this theory illustrates a general trend and all of the things I tried to explain above are not absolute. There are always countervailing tendencies to these theories that move in other directions without completing rendering the theory null and void.
Bukharin’s theory is of course not iron-tight and there are some disagreements, namely the theory of the ‘Labor aristocracy,’ an idea where workers within the Imperialist nations are bought off with higher than normal wages due to the excess wealth earned through imperialism. Though it’s something I don’t have time to go into. This is a book review after all.
So I was satisfied after completing the book, a dense, challenging but thoroughly rewarding work that has sharpened my understanding of how economics and war are intertwined.
August 20, 2022
A good companion to Lenin's "Imperialism," although Bukharin writes in a bit more dense manner. I would certainly recommend one read Lenin's piece first, and then this. Lenin's analysis is a bit less essentialist in the fact that he did not imply that the imperialism of the 1920s was imperialism's final form, whilst Bukharin did, and Lenin turns out to be more correct as imperialism has moved from the monopoly form of the early 1900s to the form of the multinational corporation.
April 25, 2024
Written before World War I but the theory is still actual. On page 166 starts the analysis of state capitalism and the thrive to war. It seems the description of Russia under the fascist Putin or the Peoples Republic of China under the fascist Xi Jinping.
September 30, 2024
Brilliant work of Marxist economic theory. It’s a shame that Bukharin isn’t commonly read anymore.
May 22, 2022
I think this work is nicely pairs with Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. For what it's worth, I found Lenin made a stronger argument, but Bukharin gives more context by way of a larger volume of information.
Also of note is Bukharin's thoughts about state capitalism, particularly if you have any interest in critical theory. He theorized that after the monopoly/imperialism stage of capitalism, a further evolution might be the formal fusion of monopoly capitalism and the state (mind you, this was in 1915 in the middle of WWI). Fast forward to towards the end of the inter-war period and the Frankfurt School, surrounded by Fascist states, Stalinist communism (which they were disillusioned with, and also in whose purges Bukharin was murdered), and Roosevelt's New Deal, they thought the age of state capitalism had arrived—which was therefore a change in the mode of production, and Marx's criticism of industrial capitalism no longer applied—and this is precisely what prompted their mistake of turning away from economic criticism.
Also of note is Bukharin's thoughts about state capitalism, particularly if you have any interest in critical theory. He theorized that after the monopoly/imperialism stage of capitalism, a further evolution might be the formal fusion of monopoly capitalism and the state (mind you, this was in 1915 in the middle of WWI). Fast forward to towards the end of the inter-war period and the Frankfurt School, surrounded by Fascist states, Stalinist communism (which they were disillusioned with, and also in whose purges Bukharin was murdered), and Roosevelt's New Deal, they thought the age of state capitalism had arrived—which was therefore a change in the mode of production, and Marx's criticism of industrial capitalism no longer applied—and this is precisely what prompted their mistake of turning away from economic criticism.
November 19, 2024
Lo he leído para el TFG, curiosa perspectiva sobre el imperialismo dándole una vuelta a la perspectiva de Lenin.
June 5, 2025
Better than Lenin's.
Read
October 1, 2025Bukharin, N. (1929) Imperialism and World Economy. New York: International Publishers.
December 23, 2025
An incredibly clear and well-thought-out analysis that I highly recommend everyone read at least once. The text is both eye-opening in its presentation of facts (both political & economic) that one rarely thinks about, as well as being incredibly fun to read.
December 24, 2024
world economy sees the competition of capitalism shifted to an international sphere after many national problems are solved. but this new order invites a whole new series of national contradictions such as uneven development, finance capital’s power over the state and politics, and conflicting allegiances to internationalism as the proletariat is divided. this book is still relevant in the age of looming imperialist war, where redivision is a necessity owing to our recurrent dips in profitability and limited terrestrial resources that cant help but invite another congress of great powers, and then its dissolution into imperialist war. a war that, much to many patriots and chauvinists dismay, does not lend itself to any new proletarian objectives besides one: internationalist war against the bourgeoisie.
May 6, 2009
Bukharin’s Imperialism and World Economy is considered one of the classic Marxist texts, written in 1915 as an analysis of the development of capitalism as a world system and how this leads to imperialist conflict. It’s been criticised as being outdated by in my opinion, the basis of Bukharin’s theory is still relevant today when allowing for some developments.
I found the text very dense and initially slow to digest, having to read over passages a few times to understand. Partly this is due to the language and the way a lot of Marxists write, in this old fashioned academic style but Bukharin was easier to understand than Lenin, but still harder than say, Trotsky. He explains things with emphasis on the economic and scientific arguments with isn’t my forte and there is less political points made.
The crux of his theory is that as capitalism grows into a world system where businesses are interconnected all over the world, the tendency for businesses to monopolise culminate in trusts within the nation state where nation states act on behalf of the individual capitalists within their borders. The natural competition of capitalism between individual capitalists is then carried through to competition between nation states representing capitalist interests, and this competition is often, but not always, expressed with military conflict. World War I being the prime example, as Bukharin was writing in the middle of it.
Of course, this theory illustrates a general trend and all of the things I tried to explain above are not absolute. There are always countervailing tendencies to these theories that move in other directions without completing rendering the theory null and void.
Bukharin’s theory is of course not iron-tight and there are some disagreements, namely the theory of the ‘Labor aristocracy,’ an idea where workers within the Imperialist nations are bought off with higher than normal wages due to the excess wealth earned through imperialism. Though it’s something I don’t have time to go into. This is a book review after all.
So I was satisfied after completing the book, a dense, challenging but thoroughly rewarding work that has sharpened my understanding of how economics and war are intertwined.
http://www.benjaminsolah.com/blog/?p=938
I found the text very dense and initially slow to digest, having to read over passages a few times to understand. Partly this is due to the language and the way a lot of Marxists write, in this old fashioned academic style but Bukharin was easier to understand than Lenin, but still harder than say, Trotsky. He explains things with emphasis on the economic and scientific arguments with isn’t my forte and there is less political points made.
The crux of his theory is that as capitalism grows into a world system where businesses are interconnected all over the world, the tendency for businesses to monopolise culminate in trusts within the nation state where nation states act on behalf of the individual capitalists within their borders. The natural competition of capitalism between individual capitalists is then carried through to competition between nation states representing capitalist interests, and this competition is often, but not always, expressed with military conflict. World War I being the prime example, as Bukharin was writing in the middle of it.
Of course, this theory illustrates a general trend and all of the things I tried to explain above are not absolute. There are always countervailing tendencies to these theories that move in other directions without completing rendering the theory null and void.
Bukharin’s theory is of course not iron-tight and there are some disagreements, namely the theory of the ‘Labor aristocracy,’ an idea where workers within the Imperialist nations are bought off with higher than normal wages due to the excess wealth earned through imperialism. Though it’s something I don’t have time to go into. This is a book review after all.
So I was satisfied after completing the book, a dense, challenging but thoroughly rewarding work that has sharpened my understanding of how economics and war are intertwined.
http://www.benjaminsolah.com/blog/?p=938
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews