Lenin's Theory Of Imperialism In Zambia

The Marxist theory has argued that the essence of capitalism is confined to the division of the political and the economic that makes the adjustment to the system which is promoted by the economic coercion. It can also provide a clearer view on the different forms and tools which can be used for developing effective positions. As Rioux (2014)

Imperialism was a distorted inhumane way of the ruling of a country to transport goods and other needs. The African tribes were put through the most barbaric conditions known to man. And due to these conditions, the African society was changed forever. One of the many jobs the people of the Congo had to complete was extracting rubber from trees and bringing it back to the Europeans to sell it because many people around the world wanted to build products

Initiated for the well-being of the working class under the disturbing working environment of capitalism factories, communism, and later the Lenin 's socialism, notoriously have a negative perception of capitalism, depicting it as the evil force that exploits the workers and human morals. However, many established capitalism rules proved to be appropriate in evaluating many economical problems. And in this case, capitalism 's theory enable the modern society to look at the Leninism from a different angle.

Lenin’s regarded Imperialism as the highest stage of Capitalism – was interested to explain “the necessity for capitalist exploitation of lesser developed countries and the causes of war among advanced capitalist states”. Also accepted that underconcumption and overproduction caused capitalists to look for markets in the less developed states and to engage in Imperialism. Lenin also believed that imperialist policies reflected the existence of monopoly and finance capital. “capitalism had developed such that oligopolies and monopolies controlled the key sectors of the economy”, pushing out the smaller and bleeding the domestic markets dry and so this led to the need to look elsewhere for investment opportunities.

Lenin states “Imperialism is the eve of the proletarian social revolution.” The question we have before us is not to choose between war and peace but between imperialist war or civil war. I believe Lenin was saying that if we live in a capitalist world, war will be an enduring feature in our lives. With the hope that a revolutionary struggle that fights not only individual wars, but for a society that ends wars. Giving us a complete reconstruction of society that will ensure that we as humans are never again enlisted to destroy each other for profit or power.

According to the proponents of Economic Imperialism, neoliberal policies are driven by the logic of private accumilation of capital based on the exploitation of labour throughout the world, which has in turn caused a world-wide system of production and labour exploitation, with extreme levels of inequality and a system of dependency relations as a result. It becomes quickly clear, when defining economic imperialism, that it looks very unfavourably towards both the developed West and neoliberalism. Whether this can be justified however,

President Nkrumah describes neo colonialism as a mechanism existing through economic, political, religious, ideological, and cultural means at the hands of the Western World and their pre-existing colonizers. Neo colonialism is regarded as the birth child of early colonialism by European and American countries. Colonialism sucked the resources dry from the countries in which they occupied. Colonizers then sold the products in their home countries, leaving little to spare for the Indian, African, and Latin American inhabitants who continued to live in poverty. President Nkrumah describes this new form of colonialism as “switching tactics.” He describes these imperialist tactics; as methods of promoting independence and freedom when in reality they are

The conditions that Karl Marx deems necessary for a communist revolution have not manifested themselves in the present day, presenting challenges for communist ideology. As our society has gradually been regressing further away from these prerequisite conditions, a number of new factors have become present that challenge the relevance of the Communist Manifesto. The first of these factors to be addressed is globalization in the modern world. Ever since the age of imperialism, globalization has served to spread capitalism and its effects across the world. This globalization did not occur as predicted by Marx, with “capitalism spreading across the world” and uniting the proletariat of every nation against the bourgeoisie (Munck 51). Instead, as discussed earlier, globalization took a different route, forcing an interconnectedness between every nation, and ultimately between their economies and politics. This interconnectedness, led by the industrialized nations of the West throughout the past two centuries, has generated “a movement towards democracy” and nationalism, as opposed to revolution and supranational communism (Munck 52). While Karl Marx predicted globalization and interconnectedness through capitalism, he did not predict it to unfold as it did. Currently, this globalization has only worked to secure capitalism, as the industrialized countries promote it throughout the rest of the world, as seen repeatedly in U.S. intervention in foreign affairs. Consequently, this

One of the major reasons why Marxism has generally been neglected in International Relations is due to the scarcity of Marxist writing that is specifically focused on this subject. However, it can be argued that due to this paucity of material, Marxist theory has nothing of substantial value to offer with regards to international relations. Non- Marxists argue that the concepts in Marx’s analysis of capitalist production; class, labor, exchange value, surplus value, are not relevant to international relations where the basic subject of analysis is the state. Even the work that is being done in political science that aims to reassess the relationship between class and state, fails to offer a convincing link between internal developments and external structures. Much of the debate in Marxism has been conducted in epistemology and has a tendency to veer towards inaccessibility.

Imperialism is the policy of extending power and dominion of an empire. It is most notably accomplished through the acquisition of territory or gaining control of foreign political or economic systems. Capitalism, by nature, is imperialistic. While this system is not driven by nationalism, it does facilitate competitive rivalry, and it’s often distinguished by its usage of economic competition. Wage workers are hired by competing businesses in an industry, and these businesses strive to outperform each other. The most effective businesses sustain their dominance in the market by equipping themselves with the latest tools and tactics to gain increasing amounts of capital. From there, they continue to efficiently expand their territory to maximize profit and increase market power. Smaller businesses that do not efficiently grow their profit margin and increase their market share tend to fail in the shadows of these more powerful businesses.

Have you ever thought much about where you live and how you live? What comes to mind about what you do in your daily life compared to someone else who lives on a different continent than you do? Big difference right? The United Kingdom is a very flourished country, with many things that spark from it, and many goods things that enforce it. However, when it's compared to a country like Uganda in Africa, there are similarities and difference within both of the two countries that make them themselves. Since the Berlin conference in Europe, imperialism has become a great deal for both of these countries, with one benefitting as a developed country, while the other not benefitting, or to say a developing country. Imperialism- “the exercise of power by a state beyond its borders”- is much preceding than Europe itself, and has greatly impacted the UK and Uganda. and the comparison is distinctive yet demonstrative despite their encounter. Because of the Berlin Conference, imperialism had affected both the UK and Uganda Economically, the experience of Health/Education, and by population/agriculturally.

Lenin understood imperialism as a “monopoly stage of capitalism” (91). He gives it five features. The first being that production and capital at a high stage creates monopolies which end up being the dominant role in the economic part of society. They end up determining where money goes and what it’s used for. The companies control large portions of profit. The second is the “merging of bank capital with industrial capital” (91) which creates a financial oligarchy. Essentially only the few and powerful (the monopolies that are created) can control the money and activities of those industries and corporations. The banks become essential to the production of the finance capital. The third being the “export of capital” (91), investments or loans made versus “export of commodities” (91), which are goods made in one place, distributed and sold to others. The fourth is self explanatory, the rich monopolists stick together while the others who they saw lower than them were not included. The major corporations cooperate with

The European states became increasingly interested in the scramble for Africa in 1870 and onwards, to gain new colonial holdings so they could supply their countries with cheap resources for industrialization. When studying imperialism there have been conflicting views of what imperialism is and how it is caused between political scholars of the Liberal theory, like John A. Hobson, Social-Psychological theorists, like Joseph Schumpeter, and Marxist theorists, like Vladimir Lenin. In this essay, I will analyze the work of John A. Hobson’s, Imperialism: A Study, Joseph Schumpeter’s, The Sociology of Imperialisms, and Vladimir Lenin’s, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and argue about their differing ideas and contradictions about imperialism, as well as how these different scholars relate and agree upon ideas of imperialism.

In his work “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” (1916), Lenin states that imperialism represents a unique stage of capitalism. Quantity has transformed into quality.

Although I have determined which approach describes situations happening in Zambia, differences between the radical and liberal approaches should be determined. The main difference is that the liberal approach advocates for capitalism and freedom were as the radical approach was developed to eradicate capitalism; this was eminent at a time when capitalism in Europe had developed to a stage when it created a lot of poverty and suffering to the working class and other inferior classes of the capitalist system. Also, liberalism or the liberal approach tends to ultimately lead to the emergence of imperialism were it takes an apologetic stance in imperialism. Imperialism is the extension of control or authority over foreign areas (countries). In other words it’s the suppression of country A to country B politically, socially and economically; the direct control of one country over another in many dimensions. The radical approach on the other hand advocates on the emergence of communism as the ultimate and reasonable outcome. Communism describes a society were conflicts are not present.