13th Forum of the

World Association for Political Economy

Berlin School of Economics and Law
July 16-18, 2018

‘The Marxist Theory of Imperialism:

Which way forward’

Stavros D. Mavroudeas
Professor (Political Economy)
Dept. of Economics
University of Macedonia
156 Egnatia
54006 Thessaloniki
Greece
e-mail: smavro@uom.edu.gr
 Main argument of the paper
 The theory of Imperialism is the theoretical toolbox through which
Marxism analyses capitalism’s international system.
 Its founding block is that capitalism’s international system mirrors its
national system (it is also a system of exploitation): exploitation of less
developed economies by the more developed ones
 It is in direct contrast to Mainstream bourgeois views (that capitalism’s
international system is a mechanism mutually beneficial for all its
participants).
 The Marxist Theory of Imperialism passed through several phases: from
its birth (early 20th century) to changes of focus (1960s) to rejection
(‘globalization’ era) to rehabilitation (late 20th & early 21st centuries)
 This paper disputes several old and new conception of imperialism and
proposes a redefinition of the Theory of Imperialism based on the main
hypotheses of its classical Marxist conception. It additionally suggests
an economic mechanism of imperialism
 Structure of the paper

Marxism’s conception of the operation of capitalism’s

international political economic system as opposed to
both Orthodox and Heterodox bourgeois views

Critical review of the evolution of the Marxist theory of

Imperialism and its phases

Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism and

conclusions
 International Economics:
Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy vs Marxism

Capitalism’s
international
system

Heterodoxy: Marxism:
Orthodoxy:
Non-beneficial for mid-term Inherently
inherently conflictual and
policy deformations, requires
mutually regulation to become mutually non mutually
beneficial beneficial beneficial
 International Economics:
Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy vs Marxism
 The capitalist system from its very birth was a highly international system (proto-
capitalist activities, Mercantilism etc.)
 The study of capitalism’s international political-economic system has been a
hot issue
 Mercantilist theory during the era of transition to capitalism: this system is a
‘battlefield’ with winners and losers. The rationale behind it: the nascent
capitalist accumulation needed support from abroad (in the sense of trade
surpluses) and also protection from foreign competitors.
 Since the solid establishment of capitalism in several pioneering economies
(e.g. Britain) the big majority of the economists changed view: free
international trade is mutually beneficial.
This became the bourgeois Orthodoxy that held almost uninterruptedly since
then.
The motivation behind this: since capitalism was firmly established in some
pioneering countries the latter were not afraid of the competition from less
developed and pre-capitalist economies and, on the contrary, wanted these
economies open to their exports.
 International Economics:
Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy vs Marxism

Heterodoxy: only dissenting views within Mainstream

Economics disputed the beneficial role of free international
econ. activities. These voices became more vociferous at
particular historical conjunctures:
➢At the beginning of the 20th century and after the first
global capitalist crisis of 1873-5: various bourgeois theories
of imperialism (e.g. Hobson (1902), Schumpeter (1919)).
➢After the 2nd WW with the collapse of Western colonial
empires: the Singer-Prebisch thesis, Latin American
Structuralism and sections of the Dependency tradition.
➢After the 2008 global crisis and the subsequent Eurozone
crisis, several new analyses accusing the European
Monetary Union (EMU) for being neo-Mercantilist
 International Economics:
Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy vs Marxism

Heterodoxy:
➢A heresy that shared much common ground with the
Orthodoxy
➢Common argument: for some structural (historically
conjunctural) but not systemic (pertaining to capitalism’s
DNA) reason free international economic activities
become not mutually beneficial. A humane and wise
regulatory management of capitalism’s international
system is required to sav the system from itself.

• e.g. Hobson, Schumpeter

• nb. Keynes’ rehabilitation of Mercantilism
 International Economics:
Orthodoxy vs Heterodoxy vs Marxism

Marxism: a different conception of capitalism’s international

system: a systemic ‘battlefield’ with winners at the expense of
losers
▪ It is exploitative from its very nature and not for some
transient characteristics
▪ Exploitation at the international level is also based on
classes but it acquires additional dimensions: a country’s
bourgeoisie exploits its workers but at the same time it can
be exploited by another country’s bourgeoisie
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
Fragments in Marx (theory of the Absolute Advantage,
Ireland’s misery under British rule)
1st phase: Classical Marxist Debate on Imperialism
(beginning of the 20th century). Basic currents:
• Hilferding: pioneer but problematic
➢Analytically: implicit rejection of LTV, disproportionality
cum underconsumption th. of crisis
➢Empirically: finance capital a limited phenomenon,
implicit belief that monopolization cum finance capital is
a ‘new capitalism’
➢Politically: ‘modern protectionist policy’ [rarely
‘imperialism’], is a policy choice not a structural feature)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
• Luxemburg: a revolutionary but misguided contribution
➢Problematic methodology: Marxian schemes of
reproduction as macroeconomic models, wrong
abstractions
➢Problematic theory: underconsumptionist th. of crisis and
unwarranted emphasis on the realization of value problem,
inability to reply to the Bukharin critique (capitalists as
buyers of their produce)
➢Empirically weak: the exhaustion of the ‘third persons/ third
countries’ space didn’t led to capitalism’
(underconsumptionist) collapse
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
• Lenin & Bukharin: a robust foundation of the th. of imperialism, main
merits:
➢Based on a periodization th. of capitalism (surpasses ‘new
capitalism’ error)
➢Uneven development thesis (against Hilferding’s + Neoclassicals
convergence thesis)
➢(After an initial flirt with underconsumptionism) based on a falling
rate of profit th. of crisis
➢After the initial association with an a-la-Hilferding monopoly th.
(monopoly replacing competition), Lenin accepted that
monopolization is part of capitalist competition (‘monopoly is the
iceberg’s tip’), retaining of LTV
➢Emphasis on exports of capital (and not simply on commodities)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
• N.Bukharin: an important thesis: capitalism has an inherent
(and permanent) contradiction between nationalization and
internationalization of capital
• H.Grossman: a neglected but significant contribution
➢Grossman (1929) proved that Marx had a th. of unequal
exchange (UE) in the international economy based on the
differences in OCC (differences in productivity) and
formalized it in a model
➢more developed capitals (hence economies) appropriate
extra surplus-value at the expense of the less developed
ones (in the same way as within an economy)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
 The logic of the Classical Marxist Debate:
Problems in capitalist accumulation (crisis tendencies)

Exports of capital

Imperialist rivalries (economic conflicts supported by political

means)
➢ Main points:
o Νational conflicts are based on class conflicts
o Primacy of conflicts between imperialist economies
o Imperialism is primarily an economic mechanism (with
politics as an appendage)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
2nd phase: neo-Marxist Dependency theory (1960-70s):
Change of focus from imperialist rivalries to conflict between
developed and less developed economies
❑Other features:
➢ Dependency th. has Heterodox (Keynesian, e.g. Singer &
Prebisch tradition) and neo-Marxist (e.g. Monthly Review,
Samir Amin) variants
➢ Marxist Dependency currents followed Luxemburg’s tradition
but also influenced by the then Keynesian Orthodoxy
(underconsumptionism) and its Heterodox variants (Singer-
Prebisch thesis): both problematic
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
2nd phase: neo-Marxist Dependency theory (1960-70s):
Change of focus from imperialist rivalries to conflict between
developed and less developed economies
❑Other features:
➢ Dependency th. has Heterodox (Keynesian, e.g. Singer &
Prebisch tradition) and neo-Marxist (e.g. Monthly Review,
Samir Amin) variants
➢ Marxist Dependency currents followed Luxemburg’s tradition
but also influenced by the then Keynesian Orthodoxy
(underconsumptionism) and its Heterodox variants (Singer-
Prebisch thesis): both problematic
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
❖The 1974 crisis showed the empirical failure of
underconsumptionism (empirical studies show that it was a
profitability crisis)
❖The secular deterioration of the terms of trade for primary goods
(i.e. alleged main exports of less developed economies) is not
verified in the long-run; moreover, there in recent decades
many less developed economies have become manufacturing
hubs
❑A.Emmanuel (1972): a major contribution in modelling unequal
exchange on the basis of LTV, Two versions of UE:
o Broad UE (based on different OCC, uncontroversial for all Marxists)
o Strict UE (based on different wage rates (hence, rates of s-v),
disputed within Marxism)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
➢Emmanuel based his th. of UE on the strict version
➢Correctly criticized for
❖Considering wage a ‘black box’ (political variable,
exogeneity) and misunderstanding Marx’s value of
labour-power
❖Disconnecting of circulation from production
(exploitation based only in exchange)
❑There are major political problems with the Dependency
th.: stages political strategy, alliance with national
bourgeoisie dichotomizing socialist strategy, led to
serious failures (subordination to national bourgeoisie)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
3rd phase: ‘globalisationist’ rejection (1980s-2000): heavy toll
on the Marxist th. of Imperialism, many currents implicitly or
explicitly several considered that imperialism is dead (e.g.
empire Hardt & Negri (2000), post-imperialism (Hayne (1999)):
Several compounded analytical and empirical errors:
❑Belief that globalization is a new stage or a new capitalism
(unprecedented and irreversible structural transformation):
several studies (both Orthodox and Marxist, e.g. Baldwin &
Martin (1999), Hirst & Thompson (1999)) have shown that (a)
there was a similar period (‘1st globalization’, 1850-1910) and
(b) it was reversed (1st WW and intra-war period of
protectionism and trade wars)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
❑Premature declaration of death of the nation-state and the
national economy: capitals (and particularly
internationalized capitals) always retain a national basis for
centralised accumulation and political support. The post-
2008 crisis’ eruption of national rivalries, return of
protectionism and covert and overt trade and currency wars
is tantamount to that
❑Erroneous adherence to the Hobson-Kautsky inter-
imperialism/ultra-imperialism thesis: imperialist rivalries
returned with vengeance (first covertly even before the 2008
crisis and now overtly), emergence of so-called ‘economic
or financial nationalism’
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
❑Superficial belief that the ‘national question’ has become
redundant: post-’globalization’ multiplication of national
states ‘birth’, eruption of nationalist conflicts, migration crises
- necessity of a Marxist th. and politics for the ‘national
question’
❑A marked lack of a coherent economic th. of ‘globalization’:
Marxist ‘globalisers’ have not been able to produce
anything of the analytical equivalence of the 1st and 2nd
phases (e.g. Hilferding, Grossman, Emmanuel) – Several
burning issues unanswered or superficially covered (e.g.
global profit rate, values and prices of production?, global
class structure?)
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
 4th phase: the return of the theory of Imperialism (2000 and onwards): the
increasing problems of the ‘globalization’/post-imperialism thesis led to a
rebirth of the Marxist th. of Imperialism
 However, several problems persisted:
❑ ‘New Imperialism’ (D.Harvey): emphasis on expropriation (modern
imperialism is based on (violent) direct extraction (expropriation)of
surplus-value rather than on indirect economic exploitation)
❑ He unwarrantedly equates capitalist imperialism with pre-capitalist
imperialism. Pre-capitalist imperialism operated within pre-capitalist
modes of production. The latter were systems of exploitation based on
relations of violence and power; that is on the direct forceful obligation
of the exploited classes. A serf was not asked if he wanted to be one; he
was obliged to be. On the contrary, capitalism is a system of exploitation
based on the economy; that is on indirect economic exploitation. No
capitalist obliges a labourer to become his employee (and thus be
exploited by the capitalist). The only thing that obliges the latter is his
inability to sustain himself otherwise.
 The long course of the
Marxist theory of Imperialism
❑Inability to substantiate empirically the ‘New Imperialism’ thesis
❑Because it is a ‘political power’ approach it fails to propose an
economic th. of imperialism
❑Its overt emphasis on politics and its marked lack of an
economic mechanism makes the ‘New Imperialism’ thesis akin
to the Heterodox (post-Keynesian etc.) theories of neo-
Mercantilism
❑The latter – despite its vociferous ‘anti-imperialist’ cries for
barbarism – makes it prone to neo-reformist solutions (new
Bretton Woods etc.)
A Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism
 Imperialism is primarily an economic mechanism and not a
political mechanism. Its aim is not political dominance but
economic exploitation. The former is a means to achieve the
latter and not a cause.
 Imperialism is not a particular stage of capitalism (although it
flourishes in some of them) but the mode through which
capitalism organizes its international system from its very birth.
Thus, imperialism should not be associated with some form of
capitalist competition (e.g. monopolies) – although some of
them enhance imperialist relations more than others – but it is a
general attribute of the system.
 Its economic exploitation mechanism (international value
transfers) works via normal capitalist competition and not only in
monopolist competition (i.e. imperialist surplus-value extraction
exists irrespectively of the existence of monopolist super-profits).
A Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism
 The global system of imperialism is a complex pyramid-like structure
comprised not by two groups (imperialist and not imperialist
economies) but by more (e.g. the emergence, since the middle 20th
century, of several economies that can be at the same time victims
of imperialist exploitation by some economies and imperialist
exploiters of others). The middle-level economies belong to the
category of sub-imperialism.
 Imperialism is not identical with the notion of finance capital
 The basic unit of the imperialist pyramid remains the national
economy. Bucharin (1976) accurate depicted capitalism’s inherent
contradiction between nationalization and internationalization). This is
expressed in tidal waves of internationalization and re-nationalisation.
On the basis of this contradiction antagonistic blocs of capitalist
economies are being formed.
A Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism
 the primary task for a modern redefinition of the Marxist theory of
imperialism is to designate the economic mechanism of imperialist
exploitation.
 It must cover the three basic areas of international econ. activities:
1) International Transfers of Value due to Trade: The Absolute
Advantage (A.Smith, K.Marx, Shaikh 1980a, 1980b, 2016 ) thesis grasps
accurately the existence of persistent disequilibria in international
trade, uneven development and geopolitical antagonisms in stark
contrast to the fictional world of free trade liberalism.: any individual
country that holds advantages in production costs at the beginning
of the trade transactions will seek to maintain them in the same way
as an individual capital struggles to prevail over its competitors in the
domestic market
The Absolute Advantage thesis implies the existence of a mechanism of
unequal exchange. The proper mechanism is that of ‘broad UE’
(Carchedi (1991)).
A Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism
2) International Transfers of Value due to Foreign Direct Investment:
Although existing from the very beginning of capitalism, it increased
significantly from the middle 20th century and onwards.
Contrary to Dependency Theory’s empirical flawed empirical belief, FDI
does not flow only from developed to less developed economies but
also within these two broad categories.
FDI means that a national capital makes a productive investment in
another economy in order to extract surplus value.
The predominant form of such investment is through multinational
corporations (MNCs) which however has distinct national bases
(metropole).
Profits from an FDI can either be re-invested in the recipient economy or
repatriated to the metropole. Only in the latter case they do constitute
an international transfer of value. Both practices are common although
there are characterized by significant historical variations.
A Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism
3)International Transfers of Value due to Portfolio Investment
International Portfolio Investment involves financial
transactions through banks (international loans) and capital
markets (playing in foreign stock exchanges).
In the case of international loans, the international value
transfer from the debtor to the lender is obvious: loans are
repaid plus interest.
In the case of stock exchange gains the case is less obvious
(as they can be ‘played’ again in the same capital market),
but a usual practice – particularly since global financial
deregulation - is to move them around the world.
A Redefinition of the Marxist theory of Imperialism
Conclusions
Subsequent requirements:
❖An analysis for the formation of economic blocs
❖An analysis of the way capitalist states are implicated in
imperialist antagonisms