From ProleWiki, the proletarian encyclopedia

Imperialism is the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, in which monopolies and cartels become the prevalent economic force of society.[1]

Beginning with the first paragraph of his pamphlet, Vladimir Lenin has written that rapid growth of industry and concentration of production in in growing enterprises represent the key characteristic of capitalism. [1]

In Vladimir Lenin's further analysis of imperialism, this economic stage is defined by five basic features:

  • The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
  • The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
  • The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
  • The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels).
  • The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.[2] This expansion to Marx's analysis of capitalist development was one of Lenin's most important theoretical contributions to political economy.

The development of imperialism in the global economy also reinforces a dialectical relationship between core-periphery countries, mainly dependency and subordination of underdeveloped countries to imperialist economies.

Theoretical basis

Marx posited, according to his three laws of motion, that as capitalist economies matured, they would inevitably be driven into a crisis which would result in internal class revolt and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat (and eventually socialism). However, according to Lenin's observations, the development of imperialism allowed capitalism to postpone this crisis through the acquisition of colonies, which served as a new outlets for capital investment and a new source of labour power to exploit.

This scramble for the expansion of capitalist empires drove the various imperialist powers into a competition with one another over the size of their imperialist spheres of influence and access to resources and labour markets, which led to destructive inter-imperialist conflicts such as the First World War. Imperialism thus stretches the inherent contradictions of capitalism to ever more extreme limits, leading J.V. Stalin to deem Leninism the "Marxism of the era of imperialism".

Imperialism as a stage of development in capitalism means that it will always develop in any sufficiently advanced capitalist mode of production. As markets become saturated within the boundaries of the individual nation (due to an influx of producers), capital must be exported elsewhere, and the main function of banks is to help with that (see finance capitalism).

Countries must eventually turn to imperialism for two main reasons:

  1. Capitalism requires constant consumption, which translates into constant growth (and GDP growth). Without GDP growth, capitalism stagnates and a recession occurs. However, since it is impossible to expect infinite growth with finite available resources and as markets become saturated, the bourgeoisie must seek new opportunities.
  2. The bourgeoisie is also in constant internal competition, and as such there is a very rational reason for a capitalist to emerge victorious over the competition; accessing untapped markets and cheaper labour will give them an edge over the competition.

However, imperialized countries will not be allowed to develop past the most primitive stage of capitalism, preventing them from developing their own imperialism. In these countries, we may see the emergence of two distinct subsections of the bourgeoisie. Firstly, a "comprador" class, i.e. the section of the national bourgeoisie which is allied with, and dependent upon, foreign imperialist investment; and second the "national" bourgeoisie, whose class interests are, at least temporarily, aligned with the exploited working class: to achieve national liberation (so that they can become exploiters without being exploited, upon which point their tentative alignment with the national proletariat will end).


Friedrich Engels alluded to imperialism in The principles of communism:

In this way, all semi-barbarian countries, which had hitherto been more or less strangers to historical development, and whose industry had been based on manufacture, were violently forced out of their isolation. They bought the cheaper commodities of the English and allowed their own manufacturing workers to be ruined. Countries which had known no progress for thousands of years – for example, India – were thoroughly revolutionized, and even China is now on the way to a revolution.

We have come to the point where a new machine invented in England deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year’s time.

In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere and has thus ensured that whatever happens in civilized countries will have repercussions in all other countries.

— Engels, Principles of communism [note 1]

At the time of his writing, imperialism was not yet a word in common use (not until the 1870s) however, policies of imperialism were already happening around the world -- especially at hands of the British Empire in Africa.

Given that imperialism is, (according to Lenin) the highest stage of capitalism, one tendency of imperialism is to export the class conflict of a nation to foreign lands. Thus, the British nation, in order to solve its problem of unemployment and food scarcity along a capitalist basis (without socialism; redistribution of wealth and power to the commoners through social ownership) it had to find new lands to settle the unemployed.

"In order to save the forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, our colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population of this country, to provide new markets. ... The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question."

Cecil Rhodes, British imperialist, as quoted in Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism


Michael Parenti described several examples of imperialism in Against Empire.

Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders. When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or "dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense," "national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.

By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people. The earliest victims of Western European imperialism were other Europeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland became the first colony of what later became known as the British empire. A part of Ireland still remains under British occupation. Other early Caucasian victims included the Eastern Europeans. The people Charlemagne worked to death in his mines in the early part of the ninth century were Slavs. So frequent and prolonged was the enslavement of Eastern Europeans that "Slav" became synonymous with servitude. Indeed, the word "slave" derives from "Slav." Eastern Europe was an early source of capital accumulation, having become wholly dependent upon Western manufactures by the seventeenth century.

A particularly pernicious example of intra-European imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of concentration camps.

The preponderant thrust of the European, North American, and Japanese imperial powers has been directed against Africa, Asia, and Latin America. By the nineteenth century, they saw the Third World as not only a source of raw materials and slaves but a market for manufactured goods. By the twentieth century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery, technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has accelerated.

Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S. imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.

Imperialism is older than capitalism. The Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Mongol empires all existed centuries before the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Emperors and conquistadors were interested mostly in plunder and tribute, gold and glory. Capitalist imperialism differs from these earlier forms in the way it systematically accumulates capital through the organized exploitation of labor and the penetration of overseas markets. Capitalist imperialism invests in other countries, transforming and dominating their economies, cultures, and political life, integrating their financial and productive structures into an international system of capital accumulation. A central imperative of capitalism is expansion. Investors will not put their money into business ventures unless they can extract more than they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in the enterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly searches for ways of making more money in order to make still more money. One must always invest to realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the face of competing forces and unpredictable markets.

Given its expansionist nature, capitalism has little inclination to stay home. Almost 150 years ago, Marx and Engels described a bourgeoisie that "chases over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. . . . It creates a world after its own image." The expansionists destroy whole societies. Self-sufficient peoples are forcibly transformed into disfranchised wage workers. Indigenous communities and folk cultures are replaced by mass-market, mass-media, consumer societies. Cooperative lands are supplanted by agribusiness factory farms, villages by desolate shanty towns, autonomous regions by centralized autocracies.

— Michael Parenti, Against Empire. City Lights Books., 1995, p. 5-6

Contemporary times

Imperial core

Today, imperialism is still very much alive as Lenin described. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank for example were institutions created for the benefit of the imperial core (the richest and oldest capitalist economies, grossly encompassing North America and Western Europe) so as to perpetually keep former colonised countries in debt that they can not repay. The IMF is known to demand specific free market policies put into place so as to facilitate movement of capital from the imperial core towards these ex-colonies, also known as the Global South. On top of having many strings attached, the IMF is allowed to seize projects when loans cannot be paid back, and they often can't due to very harsh payment plans (usually very high interest rates over a 7-year period).

This "soft" imperialism is not the only form of imperialism happening, and we can look at the US Invasion of Iraq in 2003 for a "harder" form of imperialism. In this case, the entire country of Iraq as well as the surrounding region was destabilized, which allowed U.S. oil companies to eliminate competition and seize these wells for themselves.

Soviet "imperialism"

During the Cold War, a rivalry between the world's two global powers at the time (the USA and the Soviet Union), the CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom cultivated a milieu of anti-Soviet leftists to advance the geopolitical line of the US. One accusation that was leveled against the Soviet union was that it was yet another imperialist state, based on the conflicts which happened between the Soviet Union and China. USSR did not practice imperialism in the Leninist sense — it did not export capital and was not under control of a financial oligarchy.

Chinese "imperialism"

In modern times, some accuse China of being imperialist, mainly in Africa. These people again use the liberal definition of imperialism and can be ignored in much the same way.

With its Belt and Road Initiative, China does not practice the same harsh policies as the IMF (namely, forcing austerity upon loan recipients) and that is why they are being favored by more and more countries, leading to a disinformation campaign by the imperial core to help drive popular support from the B&R and back towards the IMF. Famously, Chinese loans pay for infrastructure (needed for development), are often forgiven [3], and there are no policies required to getting such a loan.

Russian "imperialism"

In certain circles, there have been attempts to paint the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a war between two imperialist countries, the United States and Russia. Similarly to the above Chinese example, this is incorrect.

What global finance capital monopolists does Russia have that control the world market or supply chains? You will be waiting forever for an answer because there isn’t one. Russia having Gazprom and an extraction industry doesn’t mean they are imperialist. The essence of imperialism is monopolistic on a global scale, which is precisely why Russia is not imperialist, not whether they have capital generally. A perfect example of monopolies that share the world amongst themselves is the West, specifically the United States in their control of WEF, IMF, World Bank, UN Security council etc. Which allows the western powers to enforce this dominance through jingoistic foreign policy, embargoes, and keeping other countries from developing. Russia, nor China has anywhere close to this level of global power through finance capital.

Imperialist military

Imperialism is enforced by military power -- especially, since the early 20th century, by U.S. military power. One indication of this is the large number of military bases that the U.S. maintains in foriegn countries and the large number of U.S. troops stationed around the world.

U.S. military personnel in Europe

At the end of 2021, the United States had 74,000 military personnel stationed in Europe in long-term positions (according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service).[4] Not all are combat-ready troops. The numbers of these U.S. personnel in some particular countries is as follows:

  • Germany, 36,000
  • Italy, 12,000
  • Britain, 9,000
  • Spain, 3,000
  • Turkey, 1,600

Besides these personnel, the U.S. rotates 4,500 troops through Poland.[5]



  1. 1.0 1.1
    “Thus, the principal stages in the history of monopolies are the following: (1) 1860-70, the highest stage, the apex of development of free competition; monopoly is in the barely discernible, embryonic stage. (2) After the crisis of 1873, a lengthy period of development of cartels; but they are still the exception. They are not yet durable. They are still a transitory phenomenon. (3) The boom at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of 1900-03. Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism.”

    Vladimir Lenin. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism: 'Chapter 1: Concentration of production and monopolies'. [MIA]
  2. “But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

    (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.”

    Vladimir Lenin. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism: 'Chapter 7: Imperialism as a special stage of capitalism'. [MIA]
  3. Jevans Nyablage (2020-06-18T03:43). "China to forgive interest-free loans to Africa that are coming due, Xi Jinping says" South China Morning Post.
  4. "Factbox: Where NATO forces are deployed" (2022-01-24). Reuters.
  5. Reuters 2022, op. cit.