The Daily Worker Newspaper, August 22, 1925, Page 8

An Un-Leninist Analysis of Imperialism (Critique of Gomez's Article, “Labor and Empire,” in the July Workers Monthly.) HE article, “Labor and Empire,” written by Manuel Gomez in the Anti-Imperialist (July, 1925) Number of the WORKERS MONTHLY, pur- ports to contain a theoretical analysis of the historic background of imperial- ism, dts economics and its political {implications for the working class of the imperialist nations, and for the exploited or subject peoples. The ar- ticle in question is replete with errors of un-Marxian and un-Leninist nature; in fact, all of its basic theoretical propositions are partly or wholly in- correct. This is all the graver because the- magazine in which it appears is a Communist (and hence Marxist-Lenin- ist) organ; because its author is the secretary of the American section of the All-America Anti- Imperialist League and, as such, his words carry more weight and responsibility than would those of an individual of lesser official importance or activity; and finally, because it is the only article that seeks to make a general analysis of the theoretical basis of imperialism in the anti-imperialist number of a would-be Marxist-Leninist organ and therefore its errors cannot be left uncorrected. Nor would a mere “cor- tect’ analysis in the August issue, without reference ‘to the article of Gomez, be adequate, as that would leave undisturbed the errors already absorbed in the minds of many read- ers. Moreover, that is not the way that a Comunist organ corrects the errors committed in one of its articles. So much by way of explanation. Now to an analysis of the more im- portant errors, not in the order of their importance, but rather in the order of their statement in the article. “Historic Background of Imperialism.” Under this heading the article be- sini’ With thé’ rémarkable “statement: “*Ambrican workers ‘might “have al- ready thrown off the whole system of wage slavery if it were not for the appearance of imperialism.” Such speculations are un-Marxist and futile. Marx showed that capitalism leads thru accumulation to concentration and centralization of capital. This leads inevitably to monopoly capital- ism, which is the primary economic basis of imperialism. Thus Comrade Gomez’s “if” partakes of scholastic medieval speculation and not of Marx- ism. Moreover, there is no justifica- tion for the conclusion, even allowing the premises. Countries that have not ‘developed monopolistic finance capi- talism are “backward countries.” On what ground does Comrade Gomez as- sume that non-imperialist backward countries imply a victory of the pro- letariat? Moreover, America, more than any other advanced country, still has, or has had until recently, an. ex- panding home market—but to go fur- ther would be to lose one’s self in the very maze of scholastic speculation that Comrade Gomez's “if” hypothesis implies. “The Peaceful Period of Capitalism.” This is Leninist phraseology, but Comrade Gomez gets his dates, or rather, his periods, mixed. The “peacé- ful period of capitalism” in the United States Gomez dates from 1894 to the world war. This, he adds, is an inter- national phenomenon. In another part of the article he even speaks of the “peaceful period of imperialism (!)” The truth of this “historical” matter is that the peaceful period of capital- ism ends precisely where imperialism begins. By the “peaceful” period is meant that period roughly included in the second and third quarters of the nineteenth century when the first wars for capitalist unity were generally at an end (the so-called national wars) and when capitalism was based on the production of consumption commodi- ties as its typical industry, and when liberalism, “free trade. and Jeremy Bentham” prevailed in economic prac- tice and political theory in the most advanced countries. The classic land of the peaceful free trade, free com- petition and non-state-intervention period was England. The classic in- dustry textiles. The climax of this period is roughly from 1840 to 1880, It was a peaceful period because the “struggle for markets” with textile products as the typical export, does not require spheres of influence, colo- nies, the intervention of states and armies, etc., but merely quantity pro- duction, cheapness and good salesman- ship. To sell red flannel underwear to equatorial savages, it is not neces- sary to own the country, to bribe its government, to subsidize a revolution or to pry a colony loose from. its mother country by war. A German firm can sell red flannel underwear to naked savages in Madagascar (French colony) if it sends missionaries to con- vince them of the iniquity of going naked, sends cheaper, brighter-colored underwear and good patient salesmen willing to learn the language and the peculiarities of the natives. As long as free competition continues and “light” or consumption industries such as textiles continue to be the basic ones, there is no great need of colo- nies, spheres of influence, etc. “Colonies,” says the imperialistical- ly-minded Disraeli in 1852, “are just millstones around our necks.” From 1840 to 1860 and even later bourgeois politicians of the liberal school were in the saddle and opposed any colo- nial aggressiveness on the part of England itself, the characteristic col- onizing country. ‘ But the last quarter of the nine- teenth century is characterized by the change from “light” to “heavy” basic industries—that is to say, from tex- tiles to metallurgy. Also monopoly begins and finally the export of capital itself. The export of metal products im- plies the export of capital. It also implies colonies, spheres of influence, control of the governments of back- ward nations, subsidized revolutions and colonial wars. A typical form of exported “metal product” is a railway. A railway can- not be sold to an equatorial savage by a salesman and a missionary. It can only be “sold” to a backward country thru political influence or control of that country’s government. A railroad, to begin with, runs at a financial loss on the basis of its net returns, above all in a country backward industrial. ly. To make it profitable, the govern- ment of the backward country must (1) grant a concession of the right of way (2) an exclusive monopoly to that right of way, eliminating parallel lines as a possibility; and (3) subsi- dize the venture with land or money grants or grants of natural resources. Finally, it is superfluous to point out that the exporting of the “metal prod- uct” called a railway implies the ex- port (investment) of capital as well, Thus begins the scramble for con- cessions and spheres of, influence, for colonies and protectorates, for gov- ernments “friendly to foreigners” and governments friendly exclusively to American or British or German or French capital, and all the other sources of imperialist wars and on- slaughts of imperialist nations on backward ones and on each other. This, the warlike period of capital- ism, is the imperialist period, and be- gins with the beginning of monopoly capitalism, and export of capital. In other words, the warlike period of cap- italism, in the Leninist sense, begins when Gomez says the peaceful period of capitalism begins. Any one who fails to take into account this funda- mental difference between the textiles ‘and metallurgy, between the export of underwear and the export of metals and dollars, cannot grasp the first es- sentials of imperialism and the impe- rialist epoch. Moreover, it is a contamination with bourgeois pacifist “Hague conference” illusions on the one hand, and with the psychology instilled by imperialist apologists on the other, to believe that the period preceding 1914 (roughly from 1890 to 1914) was a peaceful period. The Hague conferences were only the plaster on the ulcer, Tho armament race was on, the world-war was brooding. It almost broke out in 1905 and again in 1911, a “ And the so-called “minor” wars, as imperialist apologists would call them, do they count for nothing because they were waged against black and yellow men and not between whites? Naturally, the weak nations were at- tacked first, but robber imperialism is no less warlike because its victories were easier. Germany, in 1885, seized German East Africa, in 1897 German Southwest Africa, New Guinea, Kame- run and Samoa. In 1899, Kaiu-Chau. France in 1885 ocupied the Congo, in 1895 appropriated Madagascar, in 1904 Morocco (cause of the crisis of 1905 which was of world-war magni- tude), in 1913 Syria. America in the same period took Hawaii, while Japan seized Formosa. If that:is not enough evidence of a warlike. period for Gomez (and it might be muitiplied) how about the Spanish-American war of 1898 for Cuba, Porto Rico, the Philippines and the control of the Carribean? How about the English-Boer war? The Boxer war of the combined powers against China? The Russo-Japanese war for spheres of influence in Man- churia, Korea and China? The Italo- Turkish war for the possession of Lhe hag in 1912? The Algerian Crisis, ete.? The period of imperialism ig the warlike period of capitalism. A fail- ure to grasp this makes the world war a phenomenon without precedent causes, and makes the wars against yellow and brown and black-skinned ,races no wars at all (or “peaceful” wars). In other words, it is an un- conscious reflection of pacifist jllu- sion and imperialist apologetics. Gomez, in his “historical back- ground” takes the strikes of 1870 to 1894 in the United States as an evi- dence that up till 1894 there was a warlike period and after 1894 a peace- ful period. This, of course, has noth- ing to do with Leninist analysis of imperialism although Lenin is dragged in and quoted. The strike epidemic in question was due to the world com- mercial crisis of the period. The rel- ative “class peace” period that fol- lowed 1894 (very relative indeed) was caused by the expansion due to mon- opoly growth and other factors, and was broken by repeated strike crises of great magnitude. But, I repeat, it is not this kind of “peace” to which the Lenin quotation on “peaceful period” refers. The Gomez confusion in the article goes so far as to say that “It (the peaceful period when strikes lessened in scope, number and intensity), was purchased at the expense of the back- ward and undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, thru the policy of imperialism.” (!) But enough of the “historic background.” “Superprofits.” The second part of the article deals with the economic basis of capitalism, under the heading of “Super-profits.” Here the errors are even graver and in much more elementary things. Marxian economics is turned inside out and upside down. By “super-profits” Gomez means profits in excess of the average rate of profit. He points out that imperi- alism yields such excess profits or “super-profits.” This is essentially correct, and very important. The understanding of the economics of this profit in excess of the average rate, that is yielded by imperialism,..is the understanding of the economics-of the exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This makes it all the more unfortunate that Gomez’s analysis is incomplete, incorrect and antiMarxian. ‘ The first source of “super-profit” ac- cording to Gomez “results from THE GREATLY INCREASED RATE OF EXPLOITATION AS REFLECTED IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE CAPI- By Bertram D. Wolfe rate of exploitation {s the proportion of the unpaid labor to the paid labor performed by a worker. The propor- tion of capital invested as constant or — variable capital does not enter into its calculation. The essence of imperialist exploita- tion is found in the use of a cheap and docile labor supply, a low living standard among the backward people, inhumanly long hours, inhumanly low wages, dispossessing of the backward peoples from the land, and forced la- bor. All of these, which form the es- sence of imperialist exploitation, make it the brutal thing it is and explain the revolt of China, Morocco, etc:, from the imperialist yoke, are not mentioned in the four enumerated Points. Some of the other points are incorrectly stated, and other import- ant factors are omitted, but this ar- ticle will be prolonged unduly if I analyze the economic section of Go- mez’s article any further. “Workers, Subject Peoples and the Revolution.” -— ; Passing over other errors of a minor nature, I jump to the end of the ar- ticle. The last section is called “Workers, Subject Peoples, and the Revolution.” The questions here con- sidered are of a tactical, political na- ture and therefore vital for the action and “practical conclusions” for a Bol- shevik party. Again there is lament- able confusion and even a false tac- tical position. Gomez discusses, citing Bukharin (in his battle with Boris—the alitera- tion is mine) and drawing on Lenin, the corruption that is engendered in the labor movement by imperialism which is able to bribe leaders and even whole sections of the “aristoc- racy of labor” with some part of the enormous profits, and thus win them to class collaboration and support of imperialism, This is correct, as is the position of Gomez that this cor- ruption must be fought and an effort must be made to win away the “aris- tocracy” of labor from class collabor- ation. But the vagueness of the pass- age and the failure to draw a distinc- tion between corrupted leaders and labor aristocracy leads to this lament- able sentence in which the two are unconsciously merged and illusions fostered on the possibility of winning the corrupted leadership. Here is the sentence: “While we fight to win the masses away from the leadership of these corrupted elements, we must endeav- or to break the LATTER away from the bosses and draw them more and more into the struggle. It is in un- ceasing struggle that the hope of the working class lies.” Of course, it is possible that Gomez meant to write “former” in place of “latter,” but even if that is so, the cerrection must be made. Moreover, the passage in question sins terribly by omission as well. as by what is stated. The masses must be ‘broken away, not only nor:directly ffom the bosses, but precisely from these cor- rupted leaders. This is a fundamental error in trade union policy—the omis- sion of the necessity of struggle against this corrupted — leadership. Lenin advocated it all his life, and precisely because he comprehended that they were bought by a. share of imperialist profits and were obpéctive- ly, to use a Deleonite phrase, quoted by Lenin, “labor lieutenants of the capitalist class.” If Gomez actually meant what the words appear to say, the passage is even worse for it im- Plies that the corrupted leaders as a class can be won to fight against the bosses, thus fostering an illusion in them. If we demand that they break