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
