Back to Lenin: The only way to understand what is happening

By Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein

The show staged recently at the White House, featuring the US president and the leader of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regime as the main characters in the plot, dominated news coverage for several days. The morbid curiosity gripped everyone; Zelensky’s filthy shirt, which he claims will transform him into a high-flying military strategist, and the strident whining of the Ukrainian ambassador in Washington were as significant as the insults hurled at each other by the two “statesmen” and the failure of a summit that seemed to take place at the bottom rather than at the summit.

There shouldn’t be any surprises; every lackey who attends the White House knows that if he doesn’t do what he’s ordered to do, he’s treated that way. It’s always been that way; The difference now is it’s being broadcast “live.” José Martí already said it in his essay “Our America” in January 1891: “The vain villager believes the whole world is his village, and as long as he remains mayor, or annoys the rival who stole his girlfriend, or his savings grow in his piggy bank, he accepts universal order as good, unaware of the giants who carry seven leagues in their boots and can put their boots on top of him, or of the battle of the comets in the sky, which travel through the air, asleep, swallowing worlds.”

Sometimes, this even happens outside the White House. Just a few days ago, we saw Panama’s foreign minister begging and pleading for indulgences from Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the isthmus country’s airport. In the end, after subsequent fraudulent statements defending sovereignty and fanciful displays of dignity, both Mulino and Zelensky knelt and accepted proposals that embody shame and ignominy.

Across the Atlantic, European leaders were stunned. Georgia Italy’s Prime Minister Meloni called for an “immediate” summitbetween the United States and Europe to “smooth over differences.” For his part, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invited more than a dozen European leaders to a summit to “boost European action” on Ukraine for a “just and lasting peace.”

Making it clear that there are first-class and second-class Europeans, some leaders were invited, others weren’t. Who participated in the meeting? Members of the European Union? No, the United Kingdom and Türkiye were also there. Was it a meeting between Europeans? No, Canada was there. Was it a NATO conclave? No, over 15 were absent, including the United States. It seems like it was a club of friends. The Baltics, who spew anti-Russian hysteria every time they speak, weren’t invited, which prompted a complaint that no one bothered to address.

In the end, after much ado, ostentatious words, and emotional displays of undying love for Ukraine, they failed to reach any agreement, not even a common position supporting a peace plan that reflected Kyiv’s views in its process of political suicide. Despite previous bombastic words about confronting Russia with their own soldiers, when it came down to it, panic, pusillanimous attitude, and cowardice prevailed. The Europeans are pathetic; this way of acting is their part in the show that keeps world public opinion entertained. Meanwhile, behind the curtain of this theater of the absurd, the true reasons for what is happening are hidden.

Many people are surprised. It’s true that the shape this plot is taking was unthinkable just a few weeks ago, but the current state of affairs and a minimal analysis from a strategic perspective provide clues that can explain the background of what’s happening. What is certain is that no one who uses Marxism as a method of scientific analysis of society and the state, of economics and politics, can say they didn’t know that, inevitably, at some point in historical development, this situation would happen (in drama, in comedy) or in reality.

There is no better way to understand what is happening than to read Marx and, above all, Lenin. In his work “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” written in 1916, the Soviet leader unravels the essence of capitalism’s development up to its imperialist stage and the contradictions this would inevitably generate. It is worth remembering the publication date of this work. These were the times of the inter-imperialist confrontation that became known as the First World War. The revolutionary struggle in Russia was in full swing. The United States was just emerging as the world’s leading power, abandoning—during President Wilson’s administration—the isolationist policy it had inherited from its Founding Fathers.

Lenin, -as he himself says- tried to take stock of the situation and concluded that imperialism had emerged as development​​​​​​​ and continuation​​​​​​​​ direct​​​​ of​ the​​ characteristics​​​​​ foundations of capitalism​​​​​​​​​​​​​ in general .​​ But​​ capitalism only​​​​ converted into imperialism when “its development reached a very high level, when its characteristics turned against it, when these basic elements took shape and displayed themselves in the transition from capitalism to a more advanced social and economic system. From an economic perspective, the essence of this process is the substitution of the free capitalist competition by the capitalist monopoles.”

This has reached an unbearable level of incompatibility, jeopardizing the system and the United States as its main exponent. Contrary to what is said, Trump is not crazy. He has taken note of this situation like no other Western leader and is trying to take measures to reverse the process, save the United States, and save capitalism. That’s why he resorts to the slogan “make America great again.” Why make it great again? And why again? Because it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the United States became the world’s leading power. It went from exporting US$835.639 billion and importing US$667.955 billion in 1880 to exporting US$8.108 billion and importing US$5.278 billion in 1920. About ten times more in just 40 years!

Freed through the so-called Civil War from the retrograde feudalism that paralyzed the development of its productive forces, the United States exported US$5.429 billion in 1930, while Great Britain “only” managed to export US$4.5 billion that year. In 1897 the figures were US$308 million and US$2.06 billion, respectively.

Under these conditions, in 1898 the US entered the Spanish-Cuban War, seized Cuba and Puerto Rico, and acquired the Philippines and Guam in the Pacific. In 1903, it began construction of the Panama Canal, consolidating its status as a world power by allowing maritime connections between its east coast and the Pacific and Asia, and its west coast with its flourishing eastern states. Decades earlier, it had expanded westward to reach the Pacific, first at the expense of the indigenous peoples and later of France and Mexico, just as it had expanded southward, expelling indigenous peoples and Spaniards from the region.

All of this allowed Wilson to enter the country into the First World War and profit from it like no other power. This is precisely what Trump wants to return to, because at that time, capitalism in the United States was essentially productive. Finance capital had not yet emerged with the overwhelming force it has today.

We return to Lenin. He says that one of the peculiarities of imperialism as opposed to the previous stage is its “parasitic” character. Lenin says: “The most important foundation of imperialism is the monopoly. (…) The capitalist monopoly, that is, a monopoly emerged from capitalism that exists in the general conditions of this, the mercantile production and the competition, and that is at the same time in permanent and unsolvable contradiction to them. Notwithstanding, as all monopolies, the capitalist monopoly inevitably includes the tendency of freeze and decadence. To the extent​​​ they get aware, although​​​​ momentarily,​​​​​​​​​​​ the precious prices​​ monopolists, the factors​​​​​​ that had ​stimulated the technical or any other progress start disappearing, including the possibility to delay technological progress deliberately.”

This is what has been happening in the United States and what Trump is trying to prevent. He has witnessed the deplorable state of American industry and the decline in its scientific development, which has particularly affected the arms industry, leaving the United States at a strategic disadvantage compared to China and Russia. Despite having a military budget four times that of China and seven times that of Russia, this has not prevented the United States from lagging astonishingly behind its strategic enemies in the development of hypersonic missiles, fifth-generation fighter jets, submarines, and other surface vessels.

Therefore, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that Washington will no longer prioritize the security of Europe, determining that the war between Ukraine and Russia “must end,” as the preponderance of objectives to be met was geared toward securing his country’s borders and deterring war with China. He added that current strategic realities prevent the United States from remaining the primary guarantor of security in Europe. These same realities necessitated a reduction of US forces in the region, emphasizing that Washington was facing China, a major competitor with the capability and intent to threaten US national security and its core interests in the Indo-Pacific region.

According to Hegseth, under these conditions, his country should prioritize deterring a conflict with China in the Pacific, recognizing its scarcity of resources. Therefore, Washington would make difficult decisions that would allow it to guarantee what he called “strategic deterrence.” There could be no greater evidence that the domestic economic crisis is forcing the United States to withdraw. But, of course, like any imperialist power, withdrawal entails crushing the weak while it can.

Let us continue with Lenin: “Certainly, the capitalist monopoly cannot completely eliminate competition on the world market for a very long time. Of course, the possibility of lowering production costs and increasing profits through technical improvements works in their favor. But the tendency to stagnation and decadence, inherent in monopoly, continues to operate, and in certain branches of industry and in certain countries there are periods when it prevails”. The Russian leader adds that the monopoly in the control of the rich colonies of the time acts in the same way.

Trump has realized that the process of industrial relocation undertaken by the United States in the 1980s has wiped out the country’s productive apparatus. For capitalists, it was better to pay half a dollar an hour for labor in the Philippines or Bangladesh than $8 in the United States. Capital has no sense of homeland, only of profit: to maximize income, they moved the country’s industries abroad. Now, the paradox arises that the United States is an importer… of American products. Coca-Cola is from Mexico, as are Ford and Chevrolet vehicles. Levi’s jeans are from Pakistan, and Nike shoes are from the Philippines. The brands that symbolized the splendor of the United States are imported products. High consumption leads them to a deficit. In this situation, the trend is towards​​ he​ it is so changing​​​​​​ and the​ decay, as Lenin envisioned it 109 years ago.

Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, warned that this whole process was leading to the creation of a rentier layer in society, i.e. “individuals who […] do not participate in any enterprise and whose profession is idleness”. Going ahead in time, he was able to predict the emergence of the speculative economy, which in his time (when it was just emerging) was already generating five times more profit than foreign trade. He affirmed that: “The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, accentuates even more the total separation between the rentier layer and production, imprints a stamp of parasitism on the whole country, which lives from the exploitation of the labor of a few countries and overseas colonies” and concludes: “Here is the essence of imperialism and imperialist parasitism!”

Trump wants to destroy the rentier state; he’s at war with it. That’s why some of his most bitter enemies are Wall Street and figures like George Soros and Warren Buffett, whose disguise as liberal investors and businessmen makes them “left-wing.” In the United States, inter-capitalist contradictions are manifested here based on the means by which they obtain their multi-million-dollar profits: Soros and Buffett through speculation and the stock market, Trump through the development of the productive apparatus.

But the world has changed since Lenin’s time. Chilean analyst Amador Ibáñez explains this in an article published in Rebelión entitled “Technocapitalism, Data, and Fetishism.” Ibáñez says: “Capitalism, as a dynamic and constantly changing system, adapts its forms of production and accumulation to new technological conditions. In the 21st century, under the paradigm of technocapitalism, data has become the supreme commodity, algorithms the new machines, and digital surveillance the mechanism of social control.” To that extent, “…the classic categories of historical materialism—surplus value, alienation, fetishism—are reconfigured in a world where the “solid” (the iron of factories) has vanished into the air of cloud servers.” This explains Trump’s strategic alliance with the Musks, the Zuckerbergs, the Bezoses, and other individuals who deny their human status and express their hatred toward all those who are not like them.

According to Lenin, the world was divided between a group of “user states” and a majority of “debtor states.” He said that if the latter failed to fulfill their commitments, the Armed forces of powerful countries they act as “bailiffs”. We Venezuelans know this well. At the end of 1902, 14 years before Lenin published his article, our ports were blockaded and bombarded by the navies of Great Britain, Germany, and Italy as a way of demanding immediate payment of debts owed by the government to companies from those countries.

During that period, referring to Great Britain and quoting the German economist Gerhart von Schulze-Gaevernitz, Lenin notes that that country “is gradually transforming from an industrial state into a creditor state.” This is what is happening today in the United States, but Trump ignores or pretends to ignore the causes by resorting to the expedient of blaming others: migrants, Chinese, Mexicans, Canadians, Europeans, and everything that is not the United States, its system, and its institutions. He points out that: “Despite the absolute increase in industrial production and exports, the relative importance for the entire national economy of income from interest and dividends, from emissions, commissions, and speculation is growing. In my opinion, these are precisely the economic foundations of imperialist supremacy.”

He then outlines the internal repercussions of the existence of the rentier, parasitic, and decadent state, which influences the country’s social living conditions. Therefore, they need war, thus establishing ties with financial capital to generate profits “derived from contracts, supplies, etc.” In other words, they destroy everything through wars and then their companies “rebuild” it. This is the case of Iraq in the past and what they intend to do now in Ukraine and Gaza.

But also, quoting the English economist John Hobson, who said: ” Most of the battles by which we conquered our Indian empire were fought by native troops; in India, as lately in Egypt, large standing armies are under British command; almost all our wars of conquest in Africa, with the exception of the south, were fought for us by the natives.” Doesn’t that seem familiar and recent to you? What do you think is happening in Ukraine? Any resemblance to reality is not a mere coincidence; it’s just that this time Russia prevented them from achieving their objectives. Trump has confirmed that Kiev cannot defeat Moscow, and in the midst of the serious economic crisis, he needs to stop the financial drain this represents for the American coffers.

Continuing with Hobson, Lenin recalls that Hobson said that Europe could be transformed into a paradise for the rich, with professionals and merchants working for them while large numbers of servants and laborers were employed in transport and manufacturing. He then presciently notes: “The main branches of industry would disappear, and basic foodstuffs and semi-finished goods would come, as tribute, from Asia and Africa (…) Here we see the possibilities opened before us by a broader alliance of Western states, a European federation of the great powers, which, far from promoting world civilization, could entail the gigantic danger of a Western parasitism: a group of advanced industrial nations whose upper classes would draw enormous tributes from Asia and Africa.”

This is Europe’s current crisis. A continent without wealth: energy came from Russia, trade was conducted mainly with China, and defense was guaranteed by the United States. The European Union and NATO are nothing more than a “broader alliance of Western states, a European federation of great powers, which, far from advancing global civilization, could entail the gigantic danger of Western parasitism.” Brilliant! An extraordinary foretaste in history!

Lenin does not doubt that what Hobson proposes could happen, but he adds that this would have the additional consequence that the opportunists, even those linked to the workers, would fold to these temporary victors because the enormous wealth produced by imperialism allows “the bribery of the upper layers of the proletariat, and thereby nourishes opportunism, shapes it, and reinforces it.” Here, in a footnote, the Russian leader explains the nefarious role played by social democracy and the Second International. Do we now understand where the Lulas, the Borics and Bachelets, the Petros and the Mujicas come from? We must not forget, however, says Lenin, “the forces that counteract imperialism in general and opportunism in particular …” That is the importance of the resistance, of Cuba, of Venezuela, of Nicaragua, of Palestine, of China and Russia, of Iran, and of the profound anti-colonial sentiment that is emerging in Africa.

This is the background to what’s happening. Trump wants the system that made the United States great under the conditions of productive capitalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to function under the current conditions of decadent imperialism. That’s impossible. The domestic and international situation is different. For these reasons, his project is doomed to failure, and he’s resorting to the only thing he has: force. He doesn’t skimp on friends and enemies. That’s what measures the scale of the crisis. It doesn’t matter whether he wears a filthy Ukrainian shirt or elegant suits from French designers. Nor does it matter whether he’s a Muslim from West Asia or a pompous young gentleman from Ottawa. He doesn’t understand the difference between Shanghai and Copenhagen. It doesn’t matter whether he’s from Panama or Berlin.

He needs to save America; he needs to save capitalism. In this situation, anything goes.