Kautsky on Colonialism

by Mike Macnair

The approach of the majority of the left on imperialism is drawn from Lenin’s 'Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism' and the conclusions drawn from this by the Communist ie unequivocal hostility to imperialist wars and critical support for nationalism in the subordinated countries, even where this takes unattractive forms, like Ba’athism or Islamism. A small minority has criticised this line as anti-democratic or even pro-fascist, arguing either for support for the “War on terror” or for non-opposition to it. Both sides of this argument rest on a that in the past there was a non-imperialist capitalism. The origins of this myth can be traced back to Karl Kautsky’s 1898 articles on colonialism. This book publishes these with an introduction exploring the articles and their legacy. The aim is to expose the rotten foundations of the myth and to help the left escape from the political traps of both pro-nationalist “anti-imperialism” and Yankee-philiac “anti-anti-imperialism”.

103 pages, Paperback

Published February 21, 2013

Reviews

[Jorge Seijo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un dos mellores resumos e críticas ás diferentes visións do imperialismo no marxismo clásico

[Halcyon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this exclusively for Macnair's 'critical introduction' which is half summary and half soapbox promotion of his particular brand of centrism which he attempts to establish in the interstice between anti-imperialism and 'anti-anti-imperialism'. Very interesting discussion of how classical Marxist thinking on imperialism took for granted Kautsky's wrongheaded historical analysis which imagined a non-imperialist stage of capitalism, leading to thinkers like Lenin declaring the emergence of imperialism to herald the breakdown of the capitalist mode of production and representing it's 'highest stage'. Macnair instead shows that imperialism has been with capitalism since it's origins in the mercantile states of the Mediterranean.

Kautsky attributes the emergence of protectionism (and imperialism which he says this brings with it) with the political ascendancy of pre-capitalist classes, such as the Junkers in Germany, because for him the interests of industrial capitalists align with peace and free trade. He shows his Anglophilia when he states that Britain's imperial adventures in the 19th century are all defensive in nature and in reaction to the expansion of continental states. He ignores the United States, which similarly had a protectionist and imperialist turn, because the obvious total ascendancy of the bourgeoisie there in the aftermath of the civil war (it was the pre-capitalist slaveocrats who promoted free trade!) would completely contradict his thesis. Macnair notes how these ideas lead into his conception of 'ultra-imperialism' and thus his general vacillations in regard to WW1. In a tangent, he further points out that the generally unchallenged left narrative which attributes Kautsky's opportunism to his undialectical outlook is completely unsubstantiated; in fact, he defended dialectics against Bernstein's revisionist attack.

The issues begin when Macnair moves to offer positive prescriptions on the question of imperialism after concluding his biting criticism. A self-described "ex-Trot political hack," his ideological heritage makes itself known in his confused attacks on the concept of socialism in one country. He fails to understand it was less a deliberate policy decision (one made at the expense of 'world revolution') but instead represented making peace with reality; the revolutionary moment which had emerged in the aftermath of WW1 had long-since subsided by the time Bukharin & Stalin put forward their position. The absolute law of capitalism is that it results in uneven development, and although countries do not exist in a vacuum events in each proceed generally at their own pace in regard to their specific internal contradictions. When the USSR ended up as the only socialist state in the world, a situation it could not be blamed for, a rejection of the building of socialism in one country means the rejection of building socialism *at all*.

Macnair continues with his muddled and unclear attempt to stake out a position in between the 'pro-bourgeois nationalist' anti-imperialist left, and their 'rabid Yankee-philiac' opposition (exemplified by the signatories of the Euston manifesto). He argues Marxists should not support national movements in a very vague manner, I interpret his position to be superficially similar to the KKE's 'imperialist pyramid' in which imperialism is treated as practically synonymous with capitalism because every capitalist state seeks to become a power in its own right, hence his statement that "Capitalist states naturally form a hierarchy. This hierarchy can be radically rearranged - but the result will merely be to replace one imperialist hegemon with another." He also denounces those who give support to 'progressive' capitalist powers (examples he gives being the pro-imperialist left with the US, and also parts of the left with China) on mostly moral grounds, a rather weak objection. He believes the purity of the proletarian movement is sacrosanct and in the place of the two approaches above he proposes the movement should strive maintain absolute independence, always. What this means in practice is left ambiguous; should the CPC during the Second-Sino Japanese War have shouted to the rooftops 'neither Nanjing nor Tokyo'?

The work is capped off by the typical 'left' drivel celebrating democratic workers self-management, lauding cooperatives, and identifying 'Stalinism' with Lassallean state socialism and what Marx called 'barracks communism'. All in all, Macnair's useful correction to the orthodox Leninist thinking around imperialism is soured by his floundering attempts to provide a new theoretical framework in it's place.