Critical analysis of Engels' work "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" as applied to Freudian dialect

 

When examining the application of anthropology to the physiognomy of society and the social and demographic dimension which has shaped it, a lot of this can be linked back to  Hegelian dialect, which has been further reviewed and built upon through understanding Engels’ perspective on the matter. This can be outlined in his 1876 manuscript, The Role of Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. This manuscript, which consists of only an unfinished introduction and which was never published within Engels’ lifetime, provides an insight into the ways in which the foundations of a society ruled by a variety of constructs and social norms based off of physical and socially constructed characteristics of individuals based off of age, gender, and sexuality. While a lot of what is presented in this work would seem like a rather crude and empirical observation based off of a specific time period, it can prove to be useful in providing a possible (albeit overly simplistic and heavily based off of highly outdated socially constructed ideals), it proves to provide an insightful and interesting perspective on the nature of these ideals, and how they could potentially be something of crude human nature which has not undergone radicalisation or exposure to alternative means in which societies can operate, as is effectively achieved through understanding the evolution of the humanoid species by. This would perhaps also present striking similarities between Freudian dialect to also be somewhat evident with regard to the naturalistic ideas about sexuality and sexual activity which are observed here.

Physical geography and the topographical characteristics of the environment in which primates were born into were believed by Engels to be directly related to their anatomical development and had clearly influenced their evolution into humans. The most notable stages to this development and the key means by which the more advanced Homo Sapiens species could be effectively distinguished from primates and other species would be through their manual dexterity and ability to develop and use tools. This extended to their ability to engage in sexual activity and for differences in their physical form in relation to their abilities to carry out specific functions. As a result, this marked the beginning of ideas on traditional gender roles to be established, so functioning as the point at which the established conduct of behaving associated with these were born, there laying the foundations of today’s chauvinistic and machist society in which sexual repression remains evident. By this logic, gender and biological sex are seen as interrelated and stemming from the same scientific rationale.

This attitude, however, appears to be very much disproven by many more feminist and liberal commentary by which gender is not viewed as real or related to gender sex; it’s merely a perceived social construct derived from physical and observable characteristics that people have been institutionalised to associate with either of the two biological sexes. As a result, many would wish to abolish the idea of gender, as well as viewing Engels’ ideas to be somewhat sexist, homophobic and transphobic in today’s society. Links between the ideas discussed with Freudian theory of penis envy and the Oedipus Complex can be established in that the common consensus that women would begin to, in their primary  stage of psychophallic development, develop a desire for the male reproductive system (even goingp so far as to be sexually attracted to their male parent) appreciating the power it has. This would thus prove to act as “the physical reproduction of the patriarchy”, and substantiate his controversial and heavily sexist claims that women functioned living lives dominated by their sexual reproductive functions.

The solution to the division and polarisation of the left in UK politics

With recent voting trends showing a shocking increase in support for the far right amongst the UK and the significant potential for the ultranationalist extremist Reform Party (along with several other extreme minority groups that are even further to the right) to form the next government, one would assume that the left are all in agreement on one thing: the need for the to come together and present a true socially conscious alternative. To some extent, this is true, however the sectarianism amongst the different left wing parties, as well as the infighting that takes place within individual parties themselves, conflict can arise with regard to this. This largely relates to their individual methods and the ways in which they appeal to a specific demographic and work around a niche. As a result, this is clear to see when looking at the recent implosion of Corbyn and Sultana’s new party, and Sultana appearing to have gone under fire for her exclusion of socially conservative people from the running of the party, and the conflict that has been observed both inside and outside of the party regarding her methods. This post will observe the importance of unity amongst the UK’s political left, and the means by which division amongst them can be reduced, as well as hint at the potential possibility of success in the formation of a coalition government between the main leftist political groups and how to achieve this.

Political compass featuring the core leftist and left-leaning UK political parties

With the left wing and far left spanning a broad range of ideologies, several of the parties that consider themselves as such may appear to have more dogmatic and theoretical emphasis compared with other regions of the political spectrum. This can be observed through a supposedly more academically inclined demographic better versed in political theory, perhaps, therefore, appealing less to much of the UK’s less politically engaged working class population, and so  establishing a clear class divide amongst voters. This appears to also directly contrast yet be heavily reflective of the demographic characteristics of the far right in UK politics, as well as their means of gaining voters. With an emphasis on fear and anger demonstrated through putting the blame onto other minority groups, as opposed to devising means of adapting to and working around the issues posed by the current political situation, this presents for a lack of intuition and for an unempathetic stance to be clearly evident amongst these individuals, considering that the social influence of antagonised minority groups would prove to be unlikely to support their own vested interests. This is likely what most attracts originally apolitical individuals or those who feel that they cannot relate to any other political theory, yet look to supposedly strong leadership by individuals who misguidedly appear to have found the solution to the social issues that affect them (although the conclusions they have come to appear to quite obviously lack nuance and be merely centred around manipulation through group mentality, and the spreading of misinformation). This can thus prove to falsely represent true working class orientated values, as well as unfairly represent the UK's working class population collectively, further presenting an interest in leftist politics and the theory behind them to remain somewhat elitist. As a result, this can be reduced by presenting these values in a way that is more palatable to a wider audience with less emphasis on ideology and political jargon. This can be demonstrated by putting greater emphasis on working class issues, grassroots initiatives, and simple apolitical priorities that would appeal to any individual looking for improved standard of living. While I do not wish to advocate for the making radical left groups appear more moderate (in fact I would even go so far as to consider the rise in support for centrist liberal political parties as dangerous as the increasing support for the right- as in they are too broad in their supporters and so could be either extremely socialist liberal, or purely socially conscious conservatives thus being more inclined to decide their policies based on what makes them most electable, therefore failing to bring about any real change), or the welcoming of socially conservative individuals into political leadership, I feel that this is fundamental in achieving successful revolution of existing systems and power structures.

Equally, reducing the sectarianism amongst the political left, in that clear conflict with regard to policies, methods and leadership has caused further division and greater infighting amongst individuals involved with leftist populist political leadership has been a large reason for their implosion. Considering the clear similarities and overlap between these political groups’ core values and the demographic they attract, it would make considerably more sense to unite them and encourage them to collectively collaborate on policy, as well as it being clear that in doing this, the significantly greater number of voters and potential seats gained by individuals on the left would be so much greater than for those on the right and far right. As can be seen with the political compass shown above in this post, many of the main leftist and left leaning political groups in the UK (although varying with regard to the extent of their liberal characteristics and whether they put greater emphasis on social or economic policy) are very much concentrated within the same quadrant, the overlaps between each of them being very obvious. This could thus provide potential for a coalition government between several of these groups to perhaps be effective in uniting the left and increasing their parliamentary representation.

All in all, the key issues with the division and polarisation of the left and their under representation amongst specific demographics appear to largely be reflective of cultural and socioeconomic differences between the left and right wing voters, and their lack of unity amongst each other. This I feel can be effectively rectified by resolution of conflict through reduction of sectarianism and the finding of common ground between the parties and the voters, so as to allow for their accessibility to previously liberal and right leaning voters, and to limit internal conflicts and infighting which may potentially hinder their ability to gain support from the public.

My attempt at doing political “art”

It’s taking me a long time to get round to writing my next post. In the meantime, here’s a something else to add some humour variety to this blog: caricatures of Lenin and Trotsky drawn by me. Despite having limited artistic experience, I don’t think I have done a bad job. The Russian phrases are: “nothing to lose but our chains” (top) and “abolish class struggle, unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks”.

Analysis of the decentralisation of Maoism as applied to historic European political discourse

 The Storming of the Bastille- French Revolution painting by Jean-Baptiste Lallemand (1789).

Something that never ceases to amaze me is how a supposedly people centric and class conscious set of communitarian and socialist economic principles can somehow ironically be responsible for the development of some of the most inegalitarian societies that have existed globally. This can be reflected through observing the case of France at the time of the French Revolution during the mid to late 18th century (and even still, to some degree, in more recent times). This was, arguably, the point in time by which the greatest reconstruction and reformation of the social and political dimension of Europe took place, its ever present and significant imprint continuing to be felt throughout the centuries that followed.  

While Mao presented the need for the “true” people, as in the workers and peasants, to rebuild society, this was achieved through undemocratic and authoritarian means by the preservation of the influence of a Leninist society led by the Bolsheviks being formed to repress and exert influence on the Mensheviks in a feudal society, in which peasants aspired to emulate the bourgeoisie as the ultimate in emancipation and gaining social influence. This seems very much reminiscent of the resultant reduction in democracy and lack of individual and collective liberty amongst the masses in the French Revolution.

It would perhaps also prove to have somewhat acted as the foundation of many contemporary political constructs of the authoritarian hard left tradition, and to have acted as an important source of inspiration for the decentralisation of Maoist ideology that rose in popularity in the second half of the 20th century. These in turn have proven to mirror the French revolution in regard to the methods, thought processes and intentions of many 18th century revolutionaries. However, many of these ideologies have arguably perhaps moved to extreme nationalism, fascism, and other more radical extreme ideals reminiscent to those central to  authoritarian far right leadership. An example of this would be Franco Freda's brand of "Maoism" (which came at the time of the far-right Italian Social Movement in the 1940s, a time at which the Western world was polarised by the ever powerful Soviet union, and the comparatively more democratic American led states at war with each other), which appeared to have been backed by many staunch supporters of Mussolini, and inspired by the rhetoric of the likes of Hitler, Giovanni Gentile, and Nietzsche. With Freda’s advocacy for terrorism considering it to be effective in dismantling existing liberal bourgeois power structures and achieving revolution through the subjugation and manipulation of the Italian people so as to detach them from this society, striking similarities between  sentiments evident amongst far right and neofascist landscape of the time. He put this down to his support for accelerationist principles claiming that one must achieve revolution through the use of violence so as to “hasten the collapse of the government, create disorder, and trigger widespread societal unrest”. These would also prove to be important in directly targeting other opposing communist groups as well as the liberal bourgeoisie, as well as firmly standing against the US who supposedly were responsible for the unwanted social and cultural change observed for Europe that was acting as a source of fear for many ultranationalists and social conservatives, with him echoing many of the antisemitic and anti internationalist sentiments of the Nazis, with little to differentiate his ideals and those of the tradition of Strasserism. He was noted to refer to these changes as “ideological infections” contracted by Europe when it “whored in all the brothels” as an “old hussy” whose womb had “conceived and engendered the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolt: whose soul was possessed by the violence of merchants and the rebellion of slaves”. This could thus further undermine the truly socialist and class conscious dimension of his aims in achieving social and economic revolution. As a result, the point of blurring of lines between the authoritarian hard left and the extreme right as applied to Maoist dialect would prove to be hard to notice with many neo-Maoist ideals arguably being closer to the latter than they are to the former (as can be effectively depicted in the political compass I have created shown below).

This could be perhaps illustrated by the depiction of Maoist and hard-left and socially conservative nationalism through Mao-Dadaism, an art movement which rose in popularity in Italy a couple of decades after this era. An early and non-technological movement mirroring present day techno feudalism, this featured the use of art with nihilistic and anti-establishment undertones to reflect on Maoism as an important means of achieving cultural revolution. This would be achieved by “playfully undermining the linguistic and cultural norms of both capitalism and socialism”, so as to ridicule all forms of organised politics and call for revolution. The global sex and drugs culture of this era was implemented into this artistic movement as a means of reflecting on this society that needed reformation.

This links back to the ironically inegalitarian and anti-socialist nature of many revolutionary movements such as those in France during the period of the French Revolution, which ironically failed to achieve its leftist intentions, and so merely further exacerbated the issues posed by a capitalist society. These continued to become even more ever-prevalent within political systems in today’s modern world, with technocratic authoritarianism, by which technology and the media is used as a means of oppression and manipulation of the population globally aiming to help them to succumb to fascist ideals, as touched upon by Yanis Varoufakis and represented by the US of today after Elon Musk’s influence. This acts as a constant reminder of the importance of a true egalitarian and socially conscious society led by the people in combatting the damage caused by an economically liberal bourgeois society, the influence of which can only be further increased to through corruption of power of the other side under  hard left authoritarian rule.

What I gained from stewarding the counter-protest against Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom protest

With multiple pin badges, leaflets, and other promotional materials in hand, after I animatedly helped encourage people to donate to and join Stand Up to Racism, I set off down the streets of London to steward the counter protest against Tommy Robinson. 

It was through this that I took in what really made London and the UK as a whole. The unity, diversity and solidarity with all groups coming together to bring about change and call for peace was what brought out the best of our nation. These were British values at their finest; in spite of what Tommy Robinson and his supporters thought, we were the ones who could “unite the kingdom” the best. As I marched on, in spite of the pouring rain and the wind blowing, I felt a real sense of warmth. Peace, love, rain (and the savoury smell of the very British delicacy of bacon sandwiches from a street vendor at one point being intermingled with the wet air as we walked past) was London in all its glory.

That was until we spotted the other side of the march. This was the side where garish displays of red, white and blue in the form of St George’s flags, Union Jacks and Israeli flags failed to cover and shield the aggression and violence of their bearers. Not even a right-winger dressed in a Union Jack waistcoat and bow tie cycling past us on an old-fashioned penny farthing bicycle, despite looking like a circus performer, could add any humour to the situation. Bottles and cans (which had ironically previously contained European lager), along with missiles were launched at many on our side. Chants of “Tommy Robinson”, “stop the boats” and IDF rang in our ears and drowned out our feeble voices. Police dived in only to be beaten and attacked by the fascist thugs. It was then that I began to feel scared. We were stewarding a protest against a vile hundred thousand strong army of brutal violence-lusting racists with thick skulls and bloated bellies. Whatever we could do to keep others safe was futile, especially since we were concerned for our own safety. This army was fuelled by anger, fear and hatred, and led by manipulation, group mentality and misinformation . Not a single original thought could be observed amongst that herd, as reflected by their chants, all phrases that they had parroted off from the egocentric paranoic narratives of Robinson and the so-called politician Nigel Farage. Thus no intelligent or socio-politically interesting statement could be uttered by them. While we were there in want of peace and love, all they wanted was to spew hate. It all gave a very sad reflection on the state of society and the lack of alternative means by which one could respond to crises that could be accessed by this demographic. I hope to learn from this experience to further appreciate the importance of community, education of the people on society, and (as well as proving to be a very scary and upsetting experience for me), I admired my bravery and that of many others.

Observations on the crossovers of policing and social class

After much delay, various technical issues and procrastination, this post is finally out for you all to read.

                                                   19th-century artwork of police in London

In modern society globally, and ingrained in many different cultures and political systems, the role of the police is regarded as functioning as extensions of the state and representatives of the law, to maintain social security and ensure that these laws are abided by. This explains the common perception that the presence of the police acts as a symbol of repression and presents class struggle (which, to a considerable extent, it does). However, historically, the police appeared to be a lot more in line with the working classes, advocating solidarity and unionisation within the workforce, and so appearing to take on the image of ambassadors for trade unions and the community in which they live and work. It is through observing these differing perceptions of the police, and their changing attitudes around race and class over time, that their political dimension, and the potential overlaps of this with socialist values, can be further understood, and conclusions can be drawn regarding where they would fit in and the extent of their influence in a society governed by class, image and material wealth, in which the core constructs of race and gender heavily influence this.

Before state-led policing was developed in the UK and became accepted as the primary effective means by which the existing social order could be preserved, the military had greater social influence and community presence, taking on many of the same roles as the police. This was before the time of Robert Peel's establishment of the Metropolitan Police, in the form it is known today, in 1829, and the Bow Street Runners in 1748 (the main alternative to the military of this time, consisting of a group of non-uniformed people with the roles of preventing and investigating crimes, and deciding on further actions regarding criminals) which functioned as the first forms of conventional policing (n.d.). The individuals who were involved in policing through these organisations were primarily working class and advocates for trade unions. While the position of the police in historic and present society seems to appear as something of a means of preserving existing class structures, maintaining order and hierarchy, thus making it appear contradictory to refer to them as representing socialist and working class values, they can be seen as significantly greater representatives of these values than the systems featuring the military before their introduction in society did (Reiner, 1978). Because of this, this supposed transition to a more socialist means of maintaining social security that Reiner describes here, when emphasising the unionisation of the police, however, is all very much relative. This is especially true considering that unionisation is not necessarily purely an overtly leftist principle, with many authoritarian centrists, right-wing libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and neoliberals potentially seeming like key advocates for unionism (Figg, 2025). This could be through using them as a means of further promoting free trade, fulfilling their own personal interests within the workplace (especially for economically right-wing people who are employed in a profession that could be seen as very working class), as well as those who had used unions as a means of training and developing solidarity within military groups (with many joining the military appearing to very much perpetuate ideals that completely oppose leftist principles). This is reflected in Reiner's description of the police membership in trade unions as having been derived from reasoning from a "diametrically opposed angle", and adds that trade unions are in many ways synonymous with class consciousness, referencing Lockwood's view of them as "the main vehicle of working class consciousness", so would, therefore, very much conflict with many common perceptions of the police.

Moreover, the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the regions in which the police would operate are also crucial in observing the primary roles of the police, the way they are regarded by their communities, as well as the image that they wish to portray. This would mean that they would become hugely susceptible to globalisation and cultural and demographic change, such as loss of jobs, migration, changes in lifestyle and inequalities, in which the differing interests of communities would often fail to be satisfied (Larsson et al, 2025), in which “conflicts between and within diaspora groups become enacted anew in a different configuration”. This can be reflected with widespread anti-migrant protests by many on the far right, as well as alternative protests by those aiming to counter this, along with the recent increasing intensity of geopolitical conflicts between nations such as India and Pakistan in relation to issues regarding Kashmir. This would present an opportunity for globalisation to reflect the changes observed in the general attitudes of the police, as well as perhaps indicate the increasing homogeneity of the ways they operate, and their role in society from a political perspective. This sentiment is echoed by Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian media sociologist, who refers to the world as being something of a global village. This idea presents for, not only the metaphorical distance between nations to be reduced as a result of increasing  communication and ability to collaborate on international affairs through time-space compression brought about by globalisation and infrastructural development, but also for greater homogeneity to be observed globally in relation to governance, security and positions on law enforcement. This has become clearly apparent when observing the increasing popularity of policing very much akin to that in the Western world becoming globally prominent. Equally , it is important to note another factor to consider when evaluating the political standing of the police and how integral they might be in a leftist society is the cultural and demographic characteristics of them as an institution, as well as specifically those members of the police who historically participated in trade union activism during the Industrial Revolution. At this time, while policing was (and still very much remains to be today) a field in which primarily white males were employed in, it was likely mainly the black police who engaged in these activities considering that the rising agitation and reactionary police activities became of “racist appeal to whites”, as well as that mostly black rank and file police used these unionist actions as a means of challenging intradepartmental racism and police brutality (Ray, 1977).

Furthermore, there is also clear evidence on the major emphasis of capitalist principles in acting as the foundations of policing globally, with private financial means of funding the police and controlling their employees being commonplace. This can be observed with the Industrial Revolution in the UK, in which an efficient workforce and effective management in the policing sector was very important at this time. This would be achieved through the private financing of the police by the Bank of England, as well as the Bank of England benefitting themselves through employing solicitors to help investigate cases of fraud and forgery, who were assisted by the police. Many other institutions around this time including insurance companies and private railway developers began to follow suit and employ private in-house investigators, surveyors and assessors to respond to the demands of a nation undergoing rapid economic development and industrial growth (Godfrey and Cox, 2016). This was an era of mass privatisation and rising international trade with many companies employing private police inspectors to oversee their operations. Moreover, this influence extended to the police themselves in that the police force became increasingly divided into several smaller private branches at the time of Queen Victoria’s succession in 1837. This was the point at which policing appeared quite clearly a truly capitalist occupation that was built upon capitalist and right wing principles.

Comparative analysis of Trotskyist and Leninist doctrines on international development

 

                                                         Trotsky (left) and Lenin (right) 

It is widely regarded that the most effective means by which global development can be measured is through, not only the total GDP per capita accrued globally, but through the ability for nations to undergo transition to a stable economy and democratic society, so as to combat poverty and inequality, this being done through advancements in infrastructure. This is reflected through it being defined by the Observatory for the Sector of Public Development as “infrastructure and capacity building in nations with relatively weaker economies” and the “building of economies that are more democratic and inclusive” (OPSI, n.d). This thus coincides with the sentiment that nations becoming increasingly developed should relate to the growth of democratic movements, and the collapse of corrupt, plutocratic systems of government led by the bourgeoisie, as is effectively described by Lenin as he noticed the growing democratic movements in Asia as being the “awakening to life, light and freedom”. He considered the capitalist and supposedly highly developed European nations as being the exact antithesis to this, discussing this perspective in his 1913 work “Backward Europe and advanced Asia” (this title perhaps appearing to be somewhat ironic to many Westerners). This presents for the social and economic advancement of many Asian countries undergoing a transition to maturity as being something brought about through “the nature of mass struggle” (Prashad, 2020). Moreover, as a result of this, Europe’s bourgeoisie appears to have very limited revolutionary capabilities, and so is very much corrupted by other imperial gains, and very effectively overthrown by the workers, therefore proving that capitalism would thus only appear to have a superficial and short term effect on development, and that the collective influence of the proletariat would likely have more dramatic positive consequences for social development globally.

The quote below further explains this:

“The character of advancement and backwardness for Lenin does not only rest on the questions of technological and economic development; it rests, essentially on the nature of mass struggle” (Prashad, 2020).

This perfectly exemplifies the notion that capitalism is a hindrance to society’s development, despite its inherent importance in maintaining power, control, and considering individuals’ consumption of primary importance, thus alluding to the idea of Europe’s comparatively high levels of development, and its appearance as many influential global superpowers. This is where Lenin and Trotsky’s views on the matter appear very much in line with each other. Equally these sentiments are very much apparent when observing Lenin's views regarding the rise of imperialism and its influence on the development of monopolies globally, achieving what he regarded as the "Highest Stage of Capitalism". This essentially echoes Kestner (a prominent American economist of the time) who referred to capitalism as the "Compulsory Submission to Monopolist Combines". Lenin builds on Marx's 1867 work "Capital" in which competition was acknowledged as being inevitable, and a "natural law" thus proving to be important in assisting the concentration of production and the development of monopolies, this being in agreement with many economists of the time. When analysing monopolisation and its continual gains in popularity during this period, Lenin considered them as very much at the apex of a capitalist system acting as "the last word in the latest phase of capitalist development" (Lenin, 1917) so as to allow societies to succumb to the "Highest Stage of Capitalism" he describes when devising his three principal stages of monopolies:

1) 1860-70: highest stage- apex of development of free competition.

2) Post 1873 crisis: wide zone development of cartels but they are still the exception.

3) Boom at the end of the 19th century and 1900-1903 crisis- cartels are the foundations of economic life.

This would, therefore, prove to explain Lenin’s Narodnik-type advocacy for Marxism and agrarian socialism as a means by which the comparative economic failures brought about by imperialism could be effectively counteracted (Melnik, 2021). However, this idea appeared to lack credibility and remain unpopular with many other more orthodox Marxist intellectuals. These individuals countered his views by claiming that Russia, due to the sheer size and scale of their economy and the extent of their global power, would be unable to effectively circumvent capitalist development (Lenin, 1916) and had, in fact, already reached that stage, thus rendering Lenin’s attempts at revolution futile. This is in spite of Marxism being much more readily accepted in Russia during this era than it was in many other European countries. Indeed, it was largely the result of the Narodniks' actions that this had come about in that, through the application of the Marxist doctrine to their work in the 1890s, many Russian intellectuals transitioned to Marxism as a means of going against the "home-grown" and "reactionary" "utopian" oppositional groups who were out of touch with the modern political situation. As a result, monopolies became appropriated, and dialect typical of Leninist theorists (i.e. emphasis on the exacerbation of impoverishment  due to the increasing competitivity driven by capitalist development, and the denial of potential for growth being evident under capitalism) began to rise in prevalence.

 This can be largely attributed to the comparatively poor and desperate state of the Russian economy during this era drawing the Russian people to support increasingly revolutionary ideals. These orthodox Marxists would perhaps consider for Marx and Lenin’s anti-capitalist sentiments to be quite paradoxical in that Marxists consider capitalism to have been somewhat responsible for the current economic situation and the political systems in place- even describing this situation as “the most productive and dynamic social system that ever existed”. This is evidenced by many capitalist economists having more left-wing views socially, and many socialists not supporting intentions to fully dismantle large power structures. This would thus make socialism ironically not inherently anti-capitalism. Whether what Stalin refers to as the “post-humous" form of Lenin (as in the way Lenin is discussed in colloquial terms, and the application of his ideals to other political figures who built on his theory- i.e. Mao and Stalin) overshadows Leninism in its purest form or as seen by the perestroika reformers (as essentially anti-Stalin and a staunch Marxist) is another possibility as to why Lenin’s revolutionary theory may have been declined by these orthodox Marxists and reduced its success as a means of achieving revolution (Melnik, 2021).

The key means by which economic change posed by imperialism and the rising global influence of superpower nations so as to further assist transition to this high stage of absolute capitalism are described as free trade, protectionism, the agreement of taxes, quotas and tariffs, monopolisation, and the implementation of cartels (Lenin, 1916). These all appear to have the common aim of allowing for industry to be concentrated within specific regions, so as to increase individual nations' specialisation in specific industries making them more attractive trading partners. Competition, as agreed by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, is considered the reason why international relations fail, and the ability for countries to effectively cooperate in global political and economic decision making is reduced. Furthermore, it is also important to note that capitalist governments differ very much globally in regard to the extent to which they support free trade. This can be reflected through the comparative reduction in support for this during the period of the late 19th century in which cartels were successful, as well as due to economic boost through production having become increasingly socialised. This was then reversed after the effects of the resultant reduction in FDI due to more limited trade (due to cartels proving to have stopped the previously accessible supplies of raw materials and labour from the developing world), and the realisation that these cartels were the reason that capitalism had been somewhat transformed into a form of imperialism. This would be due to the corruption and exploitation of power by the leading capitalistic superpowers of the time.

This is evident when observing the Trotskyist theory of uneven and combined development, which considers capitalist society and the imperial means of development as “uneven”, and thus unsustainable, therefore proving to have had limited success in facilitating meaningful social change for many nations. An example of this would be during the era in which the US hegemony was undergoing fluctuations in success and failure, with there having been very few colonial nation states that had gained sovereignty, increased political influence, or improved social and economic conditions due to this imperial control, as well as there having been similar effects observed with the degeneration of the Soviet Union (Saccarelli et al, 2023). This appeared to have been the basis of Trotsky's dialectic of the Permanent Revolution, an idealist and somewhat Kautskyist form of evolutionary socialism that appears based on traditional theoretical Marxism. This presents for development to be effectively achieved through continual revolutionary activity, as well as the establishment of international relations through the resolution of "multiple explosive crises across the geopolitical map” (as opposed to allowing for these to remain and characterise the state of international relations, as is the norm and what Trotsky had prophesied). This clearly still remains applicable today in that Lenin supposedly compromising with Ukrainian nationalists after the Russian revolution with aims to change Ukraine's territory by Stalin and Khrushchev in relation to fulfilling the aims of the Soviet Union and increasing Russia’s colonial and imperial influence across Europe (Saccarelli et al, 2023). This remains a significant influence on Russia’s present day political power, and the initiation of the ever present conflict within this region in today’s Europe, which further acts as a reminder as to the clear failures of imperialism as a means of achieving revolution and fulfilling socialist ideals. When reflecting on and considering Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution as idealistic, the era in which he had pioneered his theory was one of much conflict and oppression in which colonial and imperial means of development were rising in popularity on both the left and the right. Trotsky would have thus appeared to be “roam(ing) the “planet without a visa” as a political pariah”.

When observing the application of Trotsky and Lenin’s doctrines to the imperial and post-imperial 20th century,  the lack of success of Trotskyist and traditional Marxist dialect in facilitating increased development and democracy in Europe is clearly highlighted. This is perhaps largely due to heavily prevalent capitalist systems appearing to overshadow this line of reasoning. Therefore, when applied to Leninist philosophy on imperialism, it can be seen that this is the point at which these two schools of thought tend to differ, with Trotskyist ideals appearing more theoretical and in line with those of orthodox Marxists, who would have considered the rise of this kind of capitalist economic system to be inevitable, and that imperialism would most likely exacerbate this situation, as opposed to supporting transition to a socialist society.

Lenin, V.I., 1916. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. pp. 19-73. Penguin Books.

Melnik, D.V., 2021.  Lenin as a development economist: A study in application of Marx's theory in Russia, published in Russian Journal of Economics; 7(1), pp.34-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.57963

Prashad, V., 2020. The internationalist Lenin: self-determination and anti-colonialism. DOI: https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/the-internationalist-lenin-self-determination-and-anti-colonialism

Rosenberg, J., et al, 2022. Debating Uneven and Combined Development/Debating International Relations: A Forum. 50(2). DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03058298211064346