The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 26, 1927, Page 8

A Newly Discovered Lenin Manuscript Preface to. Bukharin’s Brochure: “World Economics and Imperialism.” Note of the Lenin Institute: Comrade Buikharin writes in his preface to the brochure: “World. Economics and Imperialism” (at the end of 1916): “About two years ago, the manuscript (of the brochure) was sent to Russia from abroad and, after having first of all fallen into the clutches of the military censorship, it found its way by mistake to another publisher. “After the February and March revolution (1917) ‘it turned up.’ In the July days it was to have been printed, but the police spies and Junkers, who des- troyed our Party printing works, took my manu- script also into their care. Some time later I suc- ceeded in recovering the manuscript, though in a crumpled and mutilated condition, but. with. the loss of the comprehensive and extremely valuable pre- face of Comrade Lenin, to whom I here express my deep-felt thanks.” Lenin, who apparently attached much importance to his preface to the above-mentioned brochure which was written in December, 1915, had made a manu- seript copy for himself, which was preserved among his papers and is published herewith for the first time by the Institute. , The whole written manuscript consists of six pages in a emall handwriting. On the fourth page of the manuscript are calculations in figures, writ- ten in pencil, upparently the number of letters in the manuscript. At the head of the manuscript are pencil-notes by Lenin: “Kopia” and “NB.” Lenin Institute. The significance and relevance of the theme to which N. I. Bukharin’s article is devoted, needs no special elucidation. The question of imperialism is not only ‘one of the most essential, but we might say the most -essential questions in that field of national economy which concerns itself with the changes in the forms of eapitalism in recent times. Anyone who is interested in national economy or in any other field of modern social life, must absolutely become acquainted with the facts which have been so riehly compiled by the author on the basis of the newest material. It goes. without saying that it is impossible to speak of a concrete historical estimation of the present war, unless this estima- tion is based on a complete understanding of the nature of imperialism both from the economic and from the political point of view. From no other standpoint can an understanding ‘of the economic and diplomatic relations of the last decade be ac- quired,—if this understanding is wanting, it is im- possible to form a right judgment as to the war. In this question, Marxism expresses with particular clearness the demands of modern science as such, and if, by a conerete historical judgment of the war, be understood the selection of individual, in- significant facts from diplomatic “documents,” po- litical events of the day, etc., facts which suit or are pleasant to the ruling classes of a country, Marxism has nothing but a smile for the “scientific” significance of such machinations. Thus for in- stance, G. Plechanov had to say good-bye to Marx- ism, in order to replafe the investigation of the fundamental qualities and tendencies of imperialism as a system of the economic relations of the most recent, most highly developed, ripe and over-ripe capitalism by extracting a few trifles such as are pleasing to Purishkevitch and Miljukov. In doing so, the scientfic conception of imperialism is brought down to the level of a term of invective against the immediate competitors, rivals and opponents of the above mentioned imperialists, although both of them stand on the same class plane as their rivals and opponents, In our day of forgotten words, lost prin- ciples, uprooted views of life, resolutions and sacred promises thrust on one side, this is not to be won- dered at. The scientific significance of N. I. Bukharin’s work is especially that it investigates the most im- portant facts of world economics, which are related to imperialism as a whole, as a definite stage of development of capitalism at its zenith. There was a time when capitalism was comparatively “peace- ful,” when it had finally defeated feudalism in the advanced states of Europe and could develop com- paratively in a most calm and peaceful way, could “peacefully” expand over immense free territories, over countries which had not yet been finally drawn into the capitalist whirl-pool. Even in those times, in the period which embraces the years from 1871 to 1914, conditions were created by “peaceful” capi- talism which, both in a military and in a general class sense, were infinitely remote from real “peace.” For nine-tenths of the population of the advanced countries, for hundreds of millions of people in the colonies and backward countries, this was not a time of “peace,” but a time of oppression, of distress and of terror—perhaps all the more frightful because it seemed to be a “terror without end.” This time is passed beyond recall; its place has been taken by a time of sudden, eruptive, catastrophic develop- ment, full of conflict, in which what is typieni for the masses is no lonrer “terror withont -> ‘°° “terrible end.” It is particularly significant that this change has been brought about by nothing else than the im- mediate development, expansion, continuance, of the deepest tendencies of capitalism and of the produc- tion of goods altogether. The growth of exchange, the development of large industry, these are the fundamental tendencies which we can observe in the course of centuries, without any exception through- out the world. At a definite stage of the develop- ment of exchange, at a definite stage of the dé- velopment of large industry, that is at the stage which was reached at about the threshold of the 20th century, exchange created such an internation- alization of economic relations, such an interna- tionalization of capital, large industry grew so strong that monopoly began to take the place of free competition. No longer are those concerns typi- cal which “freely” compete with one another within the country and within the scope of relations with other countries; the modern ‘type is that of mono- polist associations of industrialists—trusts. Today, the typical “ruler” of the world is financial capi- tal, which is particularly movable and elastic, which is strongly interwoven both within the country and internationally, is extremely impersonal, detached from direct production, which can be particularly easily concentrated and is already so well concen- trated that the history of the world is literally in the hands of a few hundreds of milliardaires and millionaires, Speaking theoretically, in the abstract, we. may come to the conclusion, to which Kautsky (who, although in’ a somewhat different way has also abandoned Marxism) came, i.e., that the day ‘will soon come when the magnates of capital will com- bine in a trust on universal lines, when the compe- tition and the struggle of the elements of financial capital which were separated according to states, will be replaced by financial capital organized inter- nationally. This conclusion is however as abstract, simple and wrong as the similar conclusion drawn by our “Struvists”-and “economists” of the nineties c ® ; ‘d 5 ‘ 3 : 3 — 4 me By W. ILJIN of last century who drew either apologetic conclu- sions (kow-towing to capitalism, being reconciled with it, singing its praise, instead of opposing, it) or apolitical conclusions (the rejection of politics or negation of their significance, the probability of general political upheavals, et¢., a mistake of the specialized “economists”) or even professed their faith in the general strike (the “general strike” as the apotheosis of the general strike movement, carried through consistently even so far as to for- get or ignore other forms of the movement, ize. a clean “leap” from capitalism to its defeat by the weapon of the strike alone)—conclusions drawn from the progress of capitalism, from its inevitability, from its final victory in Russia. There are. signs that even today the indisputable fact of the pro- gressive character of capitalism as compared with the semi-petty bourgeois “paradise” of free compe- tition, the fact of the inevitability of imperialism and of its final victory over “peaceful” capitalism in the advanced countries of the world, may also lead to similar numerous and manifold political and apolitical mistakes and aberrations. In Kautsky’s case especially, his open breach with Marxism has not taken the form of a negation or disregard for politics, of “skipping” the political conflicts, concussions and transformations which are particularly numerous and manifold in the time of imperialism, has not taken the form of an apology for imperialism but has expressed itself in dreams of a “peaceful” capitalism. “Peaceful” capitalism has been replaced by a capitalism which is not peaceful, which is bellicose, which advances by leaps and bounds;--Kautsky must admit this, as he has already admitted it in a special article published in 1909*) in which, for the last time, he drew definite conclusions as a Marxist. Since, however, it is not possible to dream simply, openly and without dis- guise, of imperialism being converted into “peace- ful” capitalism, would it not perhaps be possiblé to clothe these dreams, which are essentially petty- ~ bourgeois, in the form of innocent mediations on a This Is “Moving Lar For Imperialism.