If Lenin was alive today

I thought of going back to 1916 and re-visit Lenin's work. 

In his 1916 work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Vladimir Lenin argues that imperialism is not just a "policy" chosen by leaders, but a necessary economic stage of capitalism.

To analyze today's world through Lenin’s eyes, we first have to look at the five "pillars" he used to define an imperialist power.

1. The Five Pillars of Lenin’s Imperialism

According to Lenin, a nation becomes "imperialist" when its economy reaches these five conditions:

1. Monopoly - Small businesses are swallowed by giant corporations (Monopolies/Trusts).

2. Finance Capital - Banks and industry merge. A "financial oligarchy" (Wall Street, etc.) runs the country.

3. Export of Capital - Nations stop just selling "goods" (cars, toys) and start exporting "money" (loans, investments) to control other countries.

4. Global Cartels - International monopolies (like Big Tech or Big Oil) divide the global market among themselves.

5. Territorial Division - The great powers finish "carving up" the world; from then on, they can only "re-divide" it through war.

Vladimir Lenin, in his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (published in 1917), argued that modern, finance-driven imperialism was the highest and final stage of capitalism as an economic system, not that imperialism was a new phenomenon in history. He was defining a specific, modern form of imperialism fundamentally tied to the industrial and financial structures of late-stage capitalism. 

Key distinctions between ancient and modern imperialism, according to a Marxist-Leninist framework, are:

Ancient Imperialism: This form, as seen with Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and others, was primarily driven by the direct acquisition of territory, resources (such as slaves and tribute), and military power. It relied on pre-capitalist economic systems like feudalism or slavery.

Modern (Capitalist) Imperialism: Lenin argued this form was a necessary development of mature industrial capitalism, characterized by the dominance of monopolies and finance capital. 

Its primary drivers were:

Export of Capital: Instead of just exporting goods, capitalist nations began exporting investment capital to other countries to seek higher profits [1].

Economic Partitioning: Great powers competed to divide the world into economic spheres of influence for raw materials, markets, and investment opportunities, leading to conflict (e.g., World War I) .

Financial Control: The focus was less on direct, large-scale territorial rule and more on establishing economic and financial control over other nations through investment, loans, and monopolies.

2. Analysis of Current Global Events by Lenin at 2026

Donald Trump & Venezuela

The Goal: Control of the world’s largest oil reserves and the removal of "non-hemispheric" actors (China/Russia) from the U.S. "backyard."

Leninist View: Lenin would see this as a classic case of "re-division." The U.S. isn't just attacking a dictator; it is attempting to secure "raw material bases" for its own monopolies. He would argue that the "Monro Doctrine" (as some call it) is the financial oligarchy using the military to protect its exclusive "sphere of influence" against rivals.

Russia & Ukraine

The Goal: Territorial expansion and maintaining a "buffer zone" against NATO.

Leninist View: This is more complex. While some argue Russia is a "weaker" capitalist power, Lenin would likely focus on the "Great Russian Chauvinism" and the attempt to violently re-divide territory. He would view the war as a conflict between two imperialist blocs: Russian capital trying to hold its "near abroad" vs. Western finance capital (NATO/EU) trying to expand its market and investment reach into Ukraine.

China's Expansionism

The Goal: The "Belt and Road Initiative," infrastructure loans, and South China Sea claims.

Leninist View: China is the clearest modern example of Lenin's "Export of Capital." By lending billions to developing nations for infrastructure, China creates a "debt-dependency." Lenin would call this "debt-imperialism"—controlling a country's resources and politics not with a governor, but with a bank loan.

Indian Expansionism

The Goal: Regional dominance in South Asia and competition with China.

Leninist View: Lenin would likely classify India as a "sub-imperialist" power or a "rising monopoly power." While it doesn't yet dominate global finance like the U.S., its domestic monopolies (like Adani or Reliance) are increasingly looking for "spheres of influence" in neighboring countries to export their own capital and secure resources.

3. Comparison: Then vs. Now

While Lenin’s 1916 analysis still feels relevant, two things have changed significantly:

Invisible Borders: In 1916, imperialism meant planting a flag (Colonialism). Today, it is often Neocolonialism—a country remains "independent" on paper, but its economy is owned by foreign banks and corporations.

Multipolarity: In Lenin's time, Britain was the undisputed king. Today, we see a "clash of imperialisms" where the U.S., China, and Russia are all competing to re-divide a world that is already fully occupied.

Lenin believed that because the world is "finished" being divided, these powers will inevitably go to war to take pieces from each other. He saw imperialism as the "eve of the social revolution" because the system becomes too violent and unstable to survive.

But then again Lenin's brainchild Soviet Union was viewd as a not only a global power but also as socialist imperialist country who contrlled eastern bloc. And the 'Social revelusion' would not happen 'soon'.

To analyze the Soviet Union as "social-imperialist" and address why the "social revolution" hasn't arrived, we have to look at how Lenin’s own theories were turned against his successors.

4. The Concept of "Social-Imperialism"

The term "Social-Imperialism"—defined as "Socialist in words, Imperialist in deeds"—was actually popularized by Mao Zedong during the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s.

If we apply Lenin’s own criteria to this- Stalin's WWII Soviet Union, we can argue:

• The Eastern Bloc as a "Sphere of Influence": Through the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, the USSR treated Eastern Europe as a closed market. They extracted raw materials (like Polish coal) and sold finished goods back to them, mirroring the "metropole-colony" relationship.

• Military Intervention: When Hungary (1956) or Czechoslovakia (1968) tried to leave the Soviet orbit, the USSR used military force to maintain its "territorial division." To a Leninist purist, this looks exactly like a Great Power protecting its "monopoly" over a region.

• Export of "Capital" (Ideology/Aid): While they didn't export private bank capital, they exported "State Capital" in the form of massive infrastructure loans and military aid to "client states" in Africa and Asia to ensure they stayed within the Soviet geopolitical bloc.

5. Why hasn't the "Social Revolution" happened?

Lenin predicted that imperialism was the "final stage" and would lead to a global collapse. Why did he get the timing so wrong?

A. The "Labor Aristocracy" Lenin actually had an answer for this. He argued that imperialist countries use "super-profits" from the exploited Global South to bribe their own working class at home. By providing higher wages, healthcare, and better living conditions, the "revolutionary fire" in countries like the U.S. or UK was extinguished. The workers became "partners" in the empire rather than its enemies.

B. The Flexibility of Finance Capitalism proved much more "elastic" than Lenin expected. Through the IMF, World Bank, and digital finance, imperialist powers found ways to manage crises and prevent the total economic collapse Lenin thought was imminent.

C. The Shift to "Informal" Empire

Today, empires don't need to occupy a country to control it. Global powers use debt traps and digital infrastructure. Because there are no visible "occupying soldiers," it is harder to mobilize a traditional "national liberation" revolution. The oppression is systemic and financial rather than just military.

 Modern Reality

Lenin viewed imperialism as a dead end. However, history suggests it might be a cycle.

When one hegemon (like the US) weakens, the world doesn't necessarily move toward a socialist revolution; instead, new "aspiring" imperialists (like China or India) step in to compete for the re-division of the world. This creates the "multipolar" world we see today—one that Lenin would recognize as a very dangerous "pre-war" environment, rather than a peaceful transition to something new.

-05/01/2026

Lenin's book is here: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism