FLSP expressed its opinion at the debate of whether India is a Imperial state
Dear comrades we have closely observed the debate based on thesis submitted by MLDP and comrades of CPIML on the interpretation of new imperialist states.
We totally agree with the fact that a new interpretation and conceptualization is needed to describe and identify the current developments of imperialism.
In interpreting the imperialism we are of the view that Lenin’s interpretation which was based on 5 main elements should be the yardstick. However the said interpretation was more or less confined to economic aspect only. However currently without assessing the other aspects such as military power, cultural life and geopolitics the imperialism cannot be interpreted effectively. So in the aforesaid premises this debate is imperative to determine important ideological basics such as mode of revolution, stage of the revolution, national liberation struggles, socialism etc.
In early 20th century Carl Kautsky expressed his own observation on imperialism giving a narrow interpretation that the imperialism is resulted with imbalance among the national states which invade weak states by powerful states. For instance the invasions of agricultural states by industrial states were an imperial intervention. However in his work of ‘ Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism’ comrade Lenin clearly ironed out the deficiencies of the above interpretation by giving a comprehensive definition. He emphasized the imperialism is a worldwide mechanism which not only the national states are involved but a gigantic power frameworks are also contributed. Therefore he interprets imperialism ‘ a development of capitalism’ as opposed to Kautsky’s interpretation namely ultra-imperialism and the other old interpretation that it is an empirical invasions of the countries. In other word Lenin did not recognize the imperialism as surrendering the national states physically but he clearly stated it is a result of intra-imperial animosities.
The Lenin stated firstly the production and capital has developed to monopolies and secondly it devolves to finance oligarchy. Thirdly that finance capital has been exported with exceptional importance and fourthly international monopolies and capitalist associations are being formulated and the said process is culminated with territorial division of the whole world.
We believe this explanation is a comprehensive definition as long as the Lenin’s era was concerned. Even in today’s context we are experiencing the capitalist monopolies and finance oligarchy which control the geopolitics of the countries directly and indirectly dividing the borders. As Lenin said imperialism operates as a system which acts as an octopus dominating all the movements of our life.
The thesis before us is whether we could consider India as a new imperialist country. A country cannot be fallen to imperial category merely because monopoles are existed. Inevitably there must be a finance oligarchy. Moreover political and economic interventions stand alone would not give imperial identity to a country.
In the aforesaid circumstances we are not of the view India is an imperialist country although India has monopolies and interventions over other neighbour countries. We identify India as an expansionist regional power and reactionary capitalist state acting as an agent of US imperialist agendas.
Sri Lanka being a backward capitalist country always is exposed to Indian interventions and expansionism thus we believe that the above position is justifiable according to the subjective and objective circumstances.
Frontline socialist party of Sri Lanka