In the former article (you can read here) I made a renewed study of the book “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism...” of Lenin. It was a CONCRETE analyse of the ACTUAL world-situation (round 1900) He mentioned already developments of imperialism, and contradictions inside imperialism, that were then beginning but now are fully developed. I think that we can use his analyse and a lot of his conclusions to make now an ACTUAL analyse of imperialism TODAY.
Opportunism (you can speak of revisionism....) in the applying of Marxist analyse result in opportunism in the “analyse” of the then (round 1900) actual and concrete world-situation and the development of imperialism. That resulted in an opportunist formulation of the strategic and organisational conclusions by a lot of “self-declared” vanguard organisations and persons. This was also already analysed critically by Lenin.
“The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders. Or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.
In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists”, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal”, regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.” But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a “pious wish”.
This is also the main attitude taken by Hobson in his critique of imperialism. Hobson anticipated Kautsky in protesting against the “inevitability of imperialism” argument, and in urging the necessity of “increasing the consuming capacity” of the people (under capitalism!). The petty-bourgeois point of view in the critique of imperialism, the omnipotence of the banks, the financial oligarchy, etc., is adopted by the authors I have often quoted, such as Agahd, A. Lansburgh, L. Eschwege, and among the French writers Victor Berard, author of a superficial book entitled England and Imperialism which appeared in 1900. All these authors, who make no claim to be Marxists, contrast imperialism with free competition and democracy, condemn the Baghdad railway scheme, which is leading to conflicts and war, utter “pious wishes” for peace, etc. This applies also to the compiler of international stock and share issue statistics, A. Neymarck, who, after calculating the thousands of millions of francs representing “international” securities, exclaimed in 1912: “Is it possible to believe that peace may be disturbed ... that, in the face of these enormous figures, anyone would risk starting a war?”
Such simple-mindedness on the part of the bourgeois economists is not surprising; moreover, it is in their interest to pretend to be so naive and to talk “seriously” about peace under imperialism. But what remains of Kautsky’s Marxism, when, in 1914, 1915 and 1916, he takes up the same bourgeois-reformist point of view and affirms that “everybody is agreed” (imperialists, pseudo- socialists and social-pacifists) on the matter of peace? Instead of an analysis of imperialism and an exposure of the depths of its contradictions, we have nothing but a reformist “pious wish” to wave them aside, to evade them.
Here is a sample of Kautsky’s economic criticism of imperialism. He takes the statistics of the British export and import trade with Egypt for 1872 and 1912; it seems that this export and import trade has grown more slowly than British foreign trade as a whole. From this Kautsky concludes that “we have no reason to suppose that without military occupation the growth of British trade with Egypt would have been less, simply as a result of the mere operation of economic factors”. “The urge of capital to expand ... can be best promoted, not by the violent methods of imperialism, but by peaceful democracy.”
This argument of Kautsky’s, which is repeated in every key by his Russian armour-bearer (and Russian shielder of the social-chauvinists), Mr. Spectator, constitutes the basis of Kautskian critique of imperialism, and that is why we must deal with it in greater detail. We will begin with a quotation from Hilferding, whose conclusions Kautsky on many occasions, and notably in April 1915, has declared to have been “unanimously adopted by all socialist theoreticians”.
“It is not the business of the proletariat,” writes Hilferding “to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the state. The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal of restoring free competition—which has now become a reactionary ideal—but the complete elimination of competition by the abolition of capitalism.” “
The book of Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - A POPULAR OUTLINE.” was at the same time an answer on that opportunism as it was the base of the political strategically line of the Russian Communist Party.
In fact out of Lenins analyse followed already the conclusion of the necessity of a worldwide anti-imperialist united front, I think. To that conclusion came the Third International.... almost. In fact, I think that only the CP of the SU as the CP of China placed their revolutionary strategy ( of the national democratic -anti-imperialist – revolution into socialist revolution) that they developed IN that overall strategy of a worldwide anti-imperialist united front, that has to be developed. In the years '30 and '40 this was made very concrete in the attempt of the SUCP (under the leadership of Stalin) to build a worldwide antifascist united front. In China the development of an Anti-Japanese anti-imperialist united front was placed by Mao Zedong in its worldwide context of the struggle against fascism.
My conclusion out of this analyse of opportunism here above made by Lenin is that an “anti-imperialist resistance against the war” (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine ...and in the future war against Iran” that is NOT combined with organising the masses in tearing down imperialism in their OWN region (by “expropriating the expropriators”)..... is opportunism. (Above all, while it is formulated in “Marxist phraseology” à la Kautsky….)
I think that a self-declared “communist” or “revolutionary” organisation, “basing itself on Marxism” that is organising manifestations “against the imperialist war”, even for a “boycott of Israel” but AT THE SAME TIME mobilising and organise the workers only for a program of “radical” reforms is making at least a serious mistake of OPPORTUNISM.
And it is getting worse if that program of reforms is basing itself on the “use the free competition” between imperialist monopolies (of which Lenin analysed that “free competition is REPLACED by monopoly”):
“For a health service like in New Zealand (so-called Kiwi-model) using the free competition to organise a public tender for medical supplies”
“The communes had to found communal public energy enterprises so that they can use the free competition between the energy monopolies to buy the cheapest energy”
These are point out of the program of the Belgian “communist” and “revolutionary” party: the Workers Party of Belgium. (pvda.be, wpb.be, ptb.be)
Now I will start with my proposals of analyse of ACTUAL imperialism.(see next article) That has to result in a CONCRETE class-analysis and the strategy for REAL anti-imperialists. (Of course as a base of discussion)
 J. Patouillet, L’impérialisme américain, Dijon, 1904, p. 272. —Lenin
 Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, T. XIX, Lvr. II, p. 225. —Lenin
 Kautsky, Nationalstaat, imperialistischer Staat und Staatenbund, Nürnberg, 1915, S. 72, 70. —Lenin
 Finance Capital, p. 567. —Lenin