A Comparison of Lenin and Bukharin on the Theory of Imperialism

The formulation of Lenin’s theory of imperialism is the core marker of the Marxist theory of imperialism entering its mature stage. However, research within Chinese academic circles on the intellectual relationship between Lenin and his contemporary theorists, especially Bukharin, regarding the discourse on imperialism needs to be deepened. Some scholars in foreign academic circles one-sidedly emphasize Bukharin’s influence on Lenin, even claiming that Bukharin was the founder of the Marxist theory of imperialism, thereby giving rise to erroneous understandings and a political nihilist attitude that negates Lenin and his theoretical contributions. This not only affects a reasonable assessment of Lenin’s theory of imperialism and its historical status, but also affects the scientific understanding of the entire system of Marxist theory of imperialism and its developmental trajectory. Therefore, this article will focus on analyzing the commonalities and differences in the thinking of Lenin and Bukharin on imperialism, comprehensively examine their intellectual relationship in the discourse on imperialism, separately delineate their respective contributions to advancing the development of the Marxist theory of imperialism, and further reaffirm Lenin’s unique contributions and multidimensional purport in the development of the Marxist theory of imperialism.

列宁帝国主义论的提出是马克思主义帝国主义理论进入成熟阶段的核心标志。但是，国内学界对列宁与同时代理论家，特别是布哈林在帝国主义论述方面的思想关系研究需要深化。国外学界部分学者片面地突出布哈林对列宁的影响，甚至认为布哈林是马克思主义帝国主义理论的创始人，由此出现了否定列宁及其理论贡献的错误认识和政治虚无态度。这不仅影响到对列宁帝国主义论及其历史地位的合理研判，也影响到对整个马克思主义帝国主义理论体系及其发展脉络的科学认识。因此，本文将重点研析列宁和布哈林关于帝国主义思考的共同点和差异性，综合考察二人在帝国主义论述方面的思想关系，分别绘出他们在推动马克思主义帝国主义理论发展的贡献图景，并进一步重申列宁在马克思主义帝国主义理论发展上的独特贡献及多维旨趣。

I. Commonalities between Lenin and Bukharin in the Theory of Imperialism

一、列宁和布哈林在帝国主义理论方面的共同点

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, a series of new problems and new situations emerging in the development of capitalism became the epochal issues that Marxists of the time commonly faced and were concerned with. Based on a common Marxist standpoint, Lenin and Bukharin’s theoretical examination of the issues of the era of imperialism presented a series of common concerns.

19世纪末20世纪初，资本主义在发展中出现的一系列新问题、新情况成为当时马克思主义者共同面对和关切的时代议题。建基于共同的马克思主义立场，列宁和布哈林对帝国主义时代问题的理论检视呈现出一系列共同关切。

(1) Same Entry Point for Analyzing Imperialism

（一）对帝国主义的分析切入点相同

In their analysis of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin started from analyzing the roots of the First World War. War is the continuation of politics, politics is based on economics, and imperialist war is a concentrated form of expression of the struggle to seize and defend the political and economic interests of the bourgeoisie. To reveal the economic and political essence of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin took the analysis of imperialist war as their entry point.

在对帝国主义的分析上，列宁和布哈林都是从分析第一次世界大战的根源入手。战争是政治的延续，政治以经济为基础，帝国主义战争是争夺并维护资产阶级政治、经济等方面利益的集中表现形式。列宁和布哈林为了揭示帝国主义经济和政治的本质，均以分析帝国主义战争为切入点。

Bukharin, at the very beginning of his book *Imperialism and World Economy*, states that the struggle between nation-states is merely the struggle between the bourgeois groups of these states. This struggle and conflict do not arise from nothing, but are determined by the specific environment in which the “national economic organism” exists and develops. Each “national economic organism” is not isolated either, but a constituent part of the world economy. In the preface he wrote for Bukharin’s book *Imperialism and World Economy*, Lenin first affirmed the great significance of Bukharin’s study of the imperialism issue, highly endorsing Bukharin’s approach of starting from an analysis of the roots of imperialist war to understand the various issues of the era of imperialism. Lenin pointed out that in the field of economic science studying changes in the forms of contemporary capitalism, the imperialism issue is the most important. “Naturally, without thoroughly clarifying the essence of imperialism from both the economic and political aspects, and without taking this as a foundation, it would be impossible to concretely and historically evaluate the current war.” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, *Collected Works*, Vol. 43, p. 339. (This note provides the source for Lenin’s evaluation of Bukharin’s theoretical views, which is a direct quotation within the text.) In fact, shortly after the outbreak of the First World War, Lenin profoundly pointed out in “The Tasks of the Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War” that “this European and world war bears the clearly defined character of a bourgeois, imperialist, dynastic war.” [2]2 Zheng Yifan, *Bukharin’s Theory of Imperialism*, p. 120. (This note provides the source for the Chinese scholar Zheng Yifan’s assessment of the relationship between Lenin’s and Bukharin’s work on imperialism.) Later, in *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (A Popular Outline)* (hereinafter referred to as *Imperialism*), he scientifically proved that the First World War was an imperialist war waged by imperialist countries to redivide the world and colonies, and to delineate the spheres of influence of finance capital. It was by no means the patriotic, nationalist war of “defending the fatherland” as whitewashed by the bourgeoisie and opportunists.

布哈林在《世界经济和帝国主义》一书开篇即言，各民族国家间的斗争，只不过是这些国家资产阶级集团间的斗争。这种斗争、冲突不是凭空而来，而是由“国民经济有机体”生存并发展于其中的特殊环境所决定的。每个“国民经济有机体”也不是孤立的，而是世界经济的一个构成部分。列宁在为布哈林《世界经济和帝国主义》一书所写的序言中首先肯定了布哈林研究帝国主义问题的重大意义，高度赞同布哈林从对帝国主义战争根源的分析入手理解帝国主义时代诸问题这一做法。列宁指出，在研究当代资本主义形式变化的经济科学领域中，帝国主义问题最重要。“自然，如果不从经济方面和政治方面彻底弄清帝国主义的实质，如果不以此为基础，那就谈不上具体地历史地评价当前这场战争。”事实上，第一次世界大战爆发后不久，列宁就在《革命的社会民主党在欧洲大战中的任务》中深刻指出：“这场欧洲的和世界的大战，具有十分明显的资产阶级、帝国主义、王朝战争的性质”。之后，他在《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段（通俗的论述）》（以下简称《帝国主义论》）中科学地证明，第一次世界大战是帝国主义国家为了重新瓜分世界和殖民地、为了划分金融资本势力范围而进行的帝国主义性质的战争，根本不是资产阶级和机会主义者所粉饰的“保卫祖国”那样的爱国主义、民族主义之战。

Thus it can be seen that both Lenin and Bukharin keenly realized the extreme importance of studying the imperialism issue. They consistently believed that imperialist war was a historical inevitability arising from the evolution and even eruption of the inherent contradictions in the process of capitalist development. They advocated revealing the bourgeois economic and political roots behind imperialist war through its analysis, thereby jointly opposing the social-chauvinist stance, theory, and method of the Second International.

由此可见，列宁和布哈林都敏锐地意识到研究帝国主义问题的极端重要性，他们一致认为帝国主义战争是资本主义发展过程中内在矛盾演进乃至爆发的历史必然，主张通过对帝国主义战争的分析揭示其背后的资产阶级经济政治根源，由此共同反对第二国际的社会沙文主义立场、理论和方法。

(2) Same Analysis of the Historical Origins of Imperialism

（二）对帝国主义的历史由来分析相同

In their analysis of the historical origins of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin dialectically recognized it as a historical product of the movement of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism.

在对帝国主义的历史由来的剖析上，列宁和布哈林都辩证地认识到它是资本主义基本矛盾运动的历史产物。

The theoretical implication of this thesis is mainly reflected in the following: On the one hand, the emergence of imperialism is not a rupture in the history of capitalist development, but its historical continuation. Capitalist production and expanded reproduction are the main historical thread and basic trend of modern world development. Imperialism is the inevitable product of the development of the inherent fundamental contradictions of capitalism. As Lenin pointed out: “Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general.” [3]3 Sidney Heitman (1920–2007) was an American historian and scholar of Russian and Soviet studies, known for his work on Bukharin. That is to say, imperialism is a historical product endogenous to capitalism, not externally attached; it is the result of the evolution of its fundamental contradictions, not the intervention of accidental factors. Imperialism is not external to capitalism; it is itself deepened capitalism, which can be called capitalist imperialism. On the other hand, imperialism is a specific historical category. Lenin saw that the emergence of imperialism occurred at a certain stage in the development of exchange and large-scale production, roughly at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. At that time, “exchange created the internationalization of economic relations and the internationalization of capital; large-scale production reached such an enormous scale that free competition began to be replaced by monopoly.” [4]4 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, *Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. 22 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 259. In Bukharin’s view, there was a great contradiction between the internationalization of capital and the nationalization of capitalist interests. Imperialism was the product and concentrated expression of this contradiction. “Imperialist policy appears only at a certain stage of historical development. At this stage, the various contradictions of capitalism are tied into a knot.” [5]5 Nikolai Bukharin, *Imperialism and World Economy* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973), p. 117.

这一论断的理论意蕴主要体现在：一方面，帝国主义的出现不是资本主义发展史的断裂，而是其历史的延续，资本主义生产和扩大再生产是近代世界发展的历史主线和基本趋势，帝国主义是资本主义内在基本矛盾发展的必然产物。诚如列宁指出的：“帝国主义是作为一般资本主义基本特性的发展和直接继续而生长起来的。”也就是说，帝国主义是资本主义内生而非外接、是其基本矛盾演化而非偶然因素介入的历史性产物，帝国主义并不外在于资本主义，其本身就是深化了的资本主义，可称之为资本帝国主义。另一方面，帝国主义是一个特定的历史范畴。列宁看到，帝国主义的出现是在交换和大生产发展的一定阶段，也就是大致在19世纪和20世纪之交产生的。那时“交换造成了经济关系的国际化和资本的国际化，大生产达到了十分庞大的规模，以至自由竞争开始被垄断所取代”。在布哈林看来，资本的国际化和资本家利益民族化之间存在着极大的矛盾，帝国主义就是这种矛盾的产物和集中表现，“帝国主义政策是在历史发展到一定阶段才出现的。在这个阶段中，资本主义的各种矛盾纠缠成一个纽结”。

Lenin and Bukharin pointed out that imperialism is a historical product of capitalist development. Adhering to a historical perspective in examining the emergence and development of imperialism is a concrete manifestation of Marxists upholding the basic viewpoints of historical materialism.

列宁和布哈林指出帝国主义是资本主义发展的历史产物，坚持用历史的观点审视帝国主义的产生及其发展，是马克思主义者坚持历史唯物主义基本观点的具体体现。

(3) Same Grasp of the Core Characteristics of Imperialism

（三）对帝国主义核心特征的把握上相同

In grasping the core characteristics of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin focused on monopoly and finance capital and their social role.

在对帝国主义的核心特征把握上，列宁和布哈林都关注到垄断和金融资本及其社会作用。

For them, imperialism not only possessed the general characteristics of capitalism, but also had its historical particularities. With the continuous improvement of the level of social productive forces, capital became increasingly concentrated, eventually leading to monopoly, which replaced free competition and occupied a decisive position. In this process, the role of banks became increasingly prominent, finance capital grew ever more powerful, merging with industrial capital to form the core engine driven by capital. The capital interest relations between countries became increasingly tense, thereby triggering conflicts of varying degrees. Lenin pointed out that monopoly is the deepest economic foundation of imperialism, the latest achievement of capitalism at its newest stage. “Typical are no longer ‘freely’ competing enterprises (domestically and in international relations), but entrepreneur monopoly alliances, trusts. The typical world ‘master’ is already finance capital.” [6]6 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, *Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. 22 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 226. Finance capital, detached from direct production, is highly flexible and highly concentrated, with financial monopoly groups holding the fate of the world. Bukharin similarly abstracted the specific category of finance capital from the extensive and deep development of monopoly organizations. He believed that the emergence of monopoly organizations such as cartels and trusts originated from the internationalization of bank capital and changes in the role of banks. Finance capital is the merged growth of bank capital and industrial capital. Imperialism “props up the structure of finance capital; it subjects the whole world to the rule of finance capital; it replaces the old pre-capitalist relations of production and the old capitalist relations of production with the relations of production of finance capital.” [7]7 Nikolai Bukharin, *Imperialism and World Economy* (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973), p. 119.

对他们而言，帝国主义不仅具有资本主义的一般特性，也有其历史特殊性。随着社会生产力水平的不断提高，资本愈来愈集中，以致产生垄断，并取代自由竞争占据决定性地位。在这个过程中，银行的作用日益突出，金融资本越来越强大，与工业资本融合生长为资本驱动的核心引擎，国家间的资本利益关系日益紧张并由此引发程度不等的诸种冲突。列宁指出，垄断是帝国主义最深厚的经济基础，是资本主义发展到最新阶段的最新成就，“典型的已经不是‘自由地’进行竞争（在国内和在国际关系中）的企业，而是企业家垄断同盟，托拉斯。典型的世界‘主宰’已经是金融资本”。金融资本脱离直接生产，十分机动灵活，且高度集中，金融垄断集团掌握着世界的命运。布哈林同样从垄断组织的广深发展中抽离出金融资本这一特殊范畴。他认为卡特尔、托拉斯等垄断组织的出现源于银行资本的国际化和银行作用的变化，金融资本是银行资本同产业资本的混合生长，帝国主义“支撑金融资本的结构；它使全世界服从于金融资本的统治；它以金融资本的生产关系代替古老的前资本主义生产关系和旧的资本主义的生产关系”。

In short, both Lenin and Bukharin attached great importance to the social role of monopoly and finance capital in the era of imperialism, viewing them as a social gravity different from the era of free competition capitalism.

要言之，列宁和布哈林都高度重视帝国主义时代垄断和金融资本的社会作用，并将其视为与自由竞争资本主义时代不同的社会引力。

(4) Same Overall Analysis of Imperialism

（四）对帝国主义的总体分析相同

In their overall analysis of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin agreed in regarding imperialism as a world system. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, imperialism had already grown into a world system; not only had monopoly organizations such as trusts, cartels, and syndicates spread throughout all the advanced capitalist countries, but the system of capital exploitation by the developed capitalist countries of backward regions, countries, or nations had also taken shape. Imperialism had developed into a system enveloping the entire world.

在对帝国主义的总体分析上，列宁和布哈林都赞同把帝国主义看成一个世界体系。19世纪末20世纪初，帝国主义已经成长为一个世界性的体系，不仅托拉斯、卡特尔、辛迪加等垄断组织已经遍布于各先进资本主义国家，而且发达资本主义国家对落后地区、国家或民族的资本剥削体系也已成型，帝国主义已发展成为一个笼罩世界各地的体系。

Bukharin pointed out that world capitalism, i.e., the world production system, had developed and acquired new systemic characteristics: on the one hand, a few strong capitalist states formed robust economies; on the other hand, there were peripheral agricultural or semi-agricultural underdeveloped countries. These two aspects constituted the imperialist world system, “because imperialism is not only a system closely integrated with modern capitalism, but also an essential element of modern capitalism.” Lenin highly affirmed the scientific significance of Bukharin’s approach of viewing imperialism as a whole and as a specific stage of capitalist development. He likewise argued that at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, “imperialism has grown from a nascent state into a dominant system; capitalist monopoly organizations occupy a primary position in the national economy and politics; the world has been completely divided up.” The era of imperialism had been forged and, in fact, demonstrated that “capitalism has become a world system of colonial oppression and financial strangulation of the vast majority of the world’s population by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries.”

布哈林指出，世界资本主义即世界性的生产体系已经发展并形成新的体系化特征，一方面是少数资本主义强国组织强固的经济体，另一方面是外围的农业或半农业的不发达国家，这两方面构成了帝国主义世界体系，“因为帝国主义不仅是同现代资本主义极紧密结合的一个体系，而且是现代资本主义的本质要素”。列宁高度肯定了布哈林把帝国主义看成一个整体和资本主义一定的发展阶段这个思路的科学意义。他同样论证道，19世纪末20世纪初，“帝国主义已经从萌芽状态生长为统治的体系，资本主义垄断组织在国民经济和政治中居于首要地位，世界已经瓜分完毕”帝国主义时代已经铸就并且在事实上表明了“资本主义已成为极少数‘先进’国对世界上绝大多数居民实行殖民压迫和金融扼杀的世界体系”。

Thus it can be seen that both Lenin and Bukharin regarded imperialism as a world system. They believed that the formation of the imperialist world system signified the creation of a global structure of capital exploitation, that this system inevitably caused and had already caused world wars, and that imperialist wars would ultimately trigger proletarian social revolution.

由此可见，列宁和布哈林都把帝国主义看做一个世界体系。他们认为，帝国主义世界体系的形成意味着全球范围的资本剥削结构的生成，这一体系必然引起并且已经引起了世界性的战争，帝国主义战争最终将引发无产阶级社会革命。

(5) Same Judgment on the Development Trend of Imperialism

（五）对帝国主义发展趋势判断相同

In their assessment of the development trend of imperialism, both Lenin and Bukharin emphasized that imperialism was the eve of proletarian social revolution, both opposed Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism, but both also dialectically saw the possibility of further capitalist development.

在对帝国主义发展趋势的研判上，列宁和布哈林都强调帝国主义是无产阶级社会革命的前夜，都反对考茨基的超帝国主义理论，但也都辩证地看到资本主义进一步发展的可能性。

For revolutionary Marxists, imperialism was not only an economic issue but also a political one. Lenin profoundly pointed out that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalist development, the eve of proletarian social revolution, and, with the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, inevitably turns into its opposite. At the same time, Lenin also saw that “imperialism is moribund but not yet completely moribund capitalism; it is dying but not yet dead capitalism.” This view was endorsed by Bukharin, who affirmatively stated: “Although the final stage of capitalism, the imperialist stage, reveals symptoms of increasing internal decay, although parasitic tendencies manifest themselves more and more strongly within the capitalist system, nevertheless, in a series of capitalist countries, especially in the most recent period, powerful productive forces are after all developing, and technology is growing.”

对革命的马克思主义者而言，帝国主义不仅是经济问题，也是政治问题。列宁深刻地指出，帝国主义是资本主义发展的最高阶段，是无产阶级社会革命的前夜，随着生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动必然转到其对立面。与此同时，列宁也看到：“帝国主义是衰朽的但还没有完全衰朽的资本主义，是垂死的但还没有死亡的资本主义”。这一观点得到布哈林的赞同，布哈林肯定地指出：“虽然资本主义的最后阶段，帝国主义阶段揭露出日益增长的内部腐朽的症状，虽然寄生倾向在资本主义体系内部越来越强烈地表现出来，但是在一系列资本主义国家里，特别是在最近时期内，强大生产力毕竟在发展，技术在成长。”

Both Lenin and Bukharin criticized Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism. They unanimously believed that ultra-imperialism could not be realized, or that before it could be realized, imperialism would collapse and proletarian social revolution would arrive. Bukharin pointed out that what Kautsky propagated was an opportunist, out-and-out revisionist theory, because in the era of finance capital, class contradictions were becoming increasingly acute, class antagonism had reached an unprecedented height, and once the state became a direct entrepreneur and organizer of production, the myth of a “supra-class state” would be eliminated from people’s consciousness. “Thus emerges the crisis of imperialism and the rebirth of proletarian socialism.” Similarly, Lenin criticized Kautsky for severing the dialectical relationship between the economics and politics of imperialism, considering Kautsky’s theory to be, in reality, a petty-bourgeois fantasy divorced from reality. At the same time, Lenin was also aware of the contrast between the theoretical possibility of the formation of a world trust and the complexity of reality. He focused more on taking reality as his starting point, “that is to say, before a single world trust, a ‘ultra-imperialist’ world union of the finance capital of all countries, can emerge, imperialism will inevitably collapse, and capitalism will necessarily transform into its opposite.” He emphasized that what would most likely cause revolution and form a breakthrough point in world historical development would certainly be in the weak links of the imperialist system. The October Revolution in Russia was a proletarian social revolution that broke out and triumphed in a weak link of the imperialist system, thereby igniting the flame of hope for world revolution.

列宁和布哈林都批判了考茨基的超帝国主义理论，他们一致认为超帝国主义是不能实现的，或者在实现以前，帝国主义就会崩溃，无产阶级社会革命就会到来。布哈林指出，考茨基宣扬的是机会主义、彻头彻尾的修正主义理论，因为金融资本时代的阶级矛盾日益激烈，阶级对抗达到空前的高度，而国家一旦成为直接的企业家与生产组织者，所谓“超阶级国家”的神话就从人们的意识中消灭了，“这样就出现了帝国主义的危机与无产阶级社会主义的再生”。同样，列宁批判考茨基割裂了帝国主义经济与政治的辩证关系，认为考茨基的理论实际上是脱离现实的小资产阶级幻想。同时，列宁也意识到世界托拉斯形成的理论可能性与现实复杂性之间存在着反差，他更加侧重以现实为出发点，“就是说在出现一个统一的世界托拉斯即各国金融资本实行‘超帝国主义的’世界联合以前，帝国主义就必然会崩溃，资本主义一定会转化为自己的对立面”。他强调，最有可能引起革命并形成世界历史发展突破口的定然是在帝国主义体系的薄弱环节。俄国十月革命就是在帝国主义体系的薄弱环节爆发并取得胜利的无产阶级社会革命，由此也点燃了世界革命的希望之火。

The commonalities in Lenin’s and Bukharin’s theories of imperialism demonstrate that both theorists used the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method to address the common epochal problem of world economic and political development at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, especially the enormous impact produced by the First World War. This highlights their shared epochal mission and also indicates that they were influenced by common intellectual resources. For example, both were deeply influenced by Rudolf Hilferding’s theory of finance capital and both adopted his relevant analysis of finance capital, although the extent of their respective borrowings differed.

列宁和布哈林关于帝国主义理论的共同点表明了两位理论家以马克思主义立场、观点和方法应对19世纪末20世纪初世界经济、政治发展，特别是第一次世界大战产生的巨大影响这一共同的时代问题，彰显了二人共同的时代使命，也表明了二人受到共同的思想资源的影响，比如他们都深受鲁道夫·希法亭（Rudolf Hilferding）金融资本理论的影响，并都采纳了其对金融资本的相关分析，尽管各自借鉴程度有所不同。

II. Differences between Lenin and Bukharin in Their Theories of Imperialism

二、列宁和布哈林在帝国主义理论方面的差异

As analyzed above, Lenin and Bukharin had common focal points in their study of imperialism and reached some identical conclusions. However, there were also differences between them, mainly manifested in their different analytical approaches and ideological emphases in the study of imperialism. This reflects the pluralistic developmental forms of Marxist theories of imperialism.

如前所析，列宁和布哈林对帝国主义的研究有共同聚焦之处，并得出一些相同的结论，但他们之间也存在一些差异，主要表现在对帝国主义研究的不同分析进路和思想侧重点上。这反映出马克思主义帝国主义理论的多元发展形态。

(1) Different Definitions of Imperialism

（一）对帝国主义的定义不同

In grasping the definition of imperialism, Lenin regarded imperialism as a special historical stage of capitalist development, while Bukharin more often viewed imperialism as the policy of finance capital.

在对帝国主义定义的把握上，列宁将帝国主义视为资本主义发展的特殊历史阶段，布哈林则更多是将帝国主义看做金融资本的政策。

Both Lenin and Bukharin considered imperialism a historical category, but their definitions of imperialism differed greatly. Lenin pointed out: “Imperialism is a special historical stage of capitalism. This special character has three aspects: (1) imperialism is monopoly capitalism; (2) imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism; (3) imperialism is moribund capitalism.” This is the perspective of the historical stage theory. Bukharin, on the other hand, placed greater emphasis on imperialism as an aggressive policy adopted by finance capital, defining imperialism from the perspective of policy theory. Whether in his 1915 work *Imperialism and World Economy* or in his 1920 work *The ABC of Communism*, Bukharin considered imperialism to be the policy of finance capital: “The aggressive policy of finance capital in its struggle for markets for goods, sources of raw materials, and fields for investment is called imperialism.” This differs substantively from Lenin’s definition of imperialism, although Lenin himself had earlier used the theory of imperialism as policy, he placed greater emphasis on the stage theory.

列宁和布哈林都认为帝国主义是一个历史范畴，但二人对帝国主义的定义有很大不同。列宁指出：“帝国主义是资本主义的特殊历史阶段。这个特点分三个方面：（1）帝国主义是垄断的资本主义；（2）帝国主义是寄生的或腐朽的资本主义；（3）帝国主义是垂死的资本主义。”这是历史阶段论的视角。布哈林则不同，他更加强调帝国主义是金融资本采取的一种侵略政策，从政策论的角度给帝国主义下定义。无论是在1915年的《世界经济和帝国主义》，还是在1920年的《共产主义ABC》中，布哈林都认为帝国主义是金融资本的政策，“金融资本为争夺销售市场、原料市场和投资场所而实行的侵略政策就叫做帝国主义”。这一点与列宁对帝国主义的定义有实质性的差异，尽管列宁早期也曾使用帝国主义政策说，但他更强调阶段论。

Furthermore, in their assessment of the timing of the formation of imperialism, Lenin more scientifically and rigorously analyzed the development process of the cartelization of the capitalist economy and the important historical juncture of the final establishment of imperialism at the beginning of the 20th century. Bukharin, however, did not precisely define the historical period of the establishment of imperialism. He said: “Just as finance capitalism… is a historically limited period, confined only to the last few decades, so imperialism, as the policy of finance capital, is also a specific historical category.” The reason for this vague definition is mainly the limitation inherent in Bukharin’s understanding of imperialism from the perspective of policy theory.

此外，在对帝国主义形成时间的研判上，列宁更加科学严谨地分析了资本主义经济卡特尔化的发展历程和帝国主义最终在20世纪初确立这一重要时间节点。而布哈林并未对帝国主义确立的历史时段加以精确界定，他说：“正像金融资本主义……是一个历史上限定的时期，即仅限于近几十年一样，作为金融资本政策的帝国主义也是一个特定的历史范畴”。之所以模糊界定，主要是因为布哈林从政策论的角度来理解帝国主义这一观点本身存在局限性。

(2) Different Understandings of Competition and Monopoly under Imperialism

（二）对帝国主义竞争和垄断的认识不同

In their understanding of the relationship between monopoly and competition under imperialism, Lenin dialectically saw that imperialist monopoly did not eliminate competition, whereas Bukharin one-sidedly believed that internal competition within capitalism was eliminated while external competition intensified.

在对帝国主义垄断和竞争关系的认识上，列宁辩证地看到帝国主义垄断并没有消除竞争，而布哈林则片面地认为资本主义内部竞争消除、外部竞争尖锐化。

In Lenin’s view, imperialist monopoly did not eliminate competition; “imperialism has not and cannot completely transform capitalism. Imperialism complicates and sharpens the contradictions of capitalism, ‘mixing together’ monopoly and free competition, but it does not eliminate exchange, the market, competition, crises, etc.” Lenin’s argument is very realistic, because the unevenness of imperialist economic and political development is manifested not only in the world market but also in their domestic markets. Lenin further pointed out: “It is precisely the combination of these two mutually contradictory ‘principles’—competition and monopoly—that constitutes the essence of imperialism, and it is this combination that is brewing collapse, i.e., socialist revolution.” Lenin combined competition and monopoly, rather than viewing the inner essence of imperialism in a fragmented way, and thereby revealed the origins of capitalist collapse and socialist revolution in this combination.

在列宁看来，帝国主义垄断并没有消除竞争，“帝国主义没有而且也不可能彻底改造资本主义。帝国主义使资本主义的矛盾复杂化和尖锐化，使垄断和自由竞争‘搅在一起’，但它消除不了交换、市场、竞争、危机等等”。列宁的这个论点是非常现实的，因为帝国主义经济政治发展的不平衡性，不仅体现在世界市场，而且体现在其国内市场上。列宁还进一步指出：“正是竞争和垄断这两个互相矛盾的‘原则’的结合才是帝国主义的本质，正是这种结合在酝酿着崩溃，即社会主义革命。”列宁将竞争和垄断结合起来，而不是分裂地看帝国主义的内在本质，进而在这种结合中揭示资本主义崩溃和社会主义革命的缘起。

Bukharin, however, idealized and one-sidedly viewed the emergence and development of state capitalism. He believed that, “From the standpoint of competition, what does state capitalism mean? It means the elimination of competition within capitalist countries and the extreme sharpening of competition between capitalist countries.” This analytical approach is non-dialectical and does not conform to reality. Imperialism has not eliminated competition; within and outside imperialist countries, various forms of competition exist, and competition has even become more intense and organized. Monopoly coexists with and is intertwined with competition. Bukharin’s theory of the disappearance of internal competition is erroneous, and its root lies in his adherence to the false premise of a pure state capitalist trust, failing to see the complexity, long-term nature, and particularity of the contradictory movement of capitalist productive forces and relations of production.

布哈林却理想化、片面地看待国家资本主义的出现和发展。他认为，“从竞争的观点看来，国家资本主义意味着什么？它意味着资本主义内部竞争的消亡和各资本主义国家之间竞争的极大尖锐化。”这种分析思路是非辩证的，也是不合符合现实的。帝国主义并没有消除竞争，在帝国主义国家内部、外部，都存在着各种形式的竞争，甚至竞争变得更加激烈化、组织化，垄断是与竞争并存且相互交织的。布哈林这种内部竞争消失论是错误的，其根源在于他坚持了纯粹的国家资本主义托拉斯的错误前提，看不到资本主义生产力和生产关系矛盾运动的复杂性、长期性和特殊性。

(3) Different Understandings of the State in the Era of Imperialism

（三）对帝国主义时代国家的认识不同

In understanding the question of the state in the era of imperialism, Lenin dialectically focused on the various transitional forms of state dependence between imperialist states and colonies and semi-colonies, whereas Bukharin tended more to examine the pole of the imperialist state itself.

在对帝国主义时代国家问题的认识上，列宁辩证地关注帝国主义国家和殖民地半殖民地过渡的各种国家依附形式，但布哈林更比较侧重于考察帝国主义国家这一极。

To serve the interests of monopoly groups, imperialist states continuously pursue imperialist politics: plundering colonies and semi-colonies, oppressing weak and small nations, and suppressing the proletarian workers’ movement. Lenin keenly noted the various transitional state forms in the era of imperialist colonialism. These forms include not only the two typical categories of suzerain states and colonies, but also various forms of dependent states that are politically and formally independent but are entangled in a web of financial and diplomatic dependence. One category is semi-colonial countries, such as Persia, China, and Turkey; another category is commercial colonies like Argentina, which is financially dependent on Britain; and yet another category is countries like Portugal, which are politically independent but financially and diplomatically dependent. Lenin believed that changes in state forms serve to better serve finance capital and monopoly interests; as long as this purpose can be met or served, any transitional state form may be invented and manufactured for the rule and plunder of finance capital. “Finance capital and the international policy corresponding to it—which in the final analysis is the policy of the great powers struggling for the economic and political division of the world—create many transitional forms of state dependence.”

帝国主义国家为了垄断集团利益不断推行掠夺殖民地半殖民地、压迫弱小民族、镇压无产阶级工人运动的帝国主义政治。列宁敏锐注意到帝国主义殖民时代的种种过渡型国家形式。这些形式既有宗主国和殖民地两大类典型，还有在政治上、形式上是独立的，实际上却被金融和外交方面的依附关系罗网缠绕着的各种形式的附属国，其中一类是半殖民地国家，如波斯、中国和土耳其，一类如阿根廷在金融上不独立、依附于英国的商业殖民地，还有一类如葡萄牙这种政治上独立、金融和外交上不独立的类型。列宁认为，国家形式的变化是为了更好地为金融资本、垄断利益服务，只要能够满足或者为了这个目的，任何过渡的国家形式都可能被发明、制造出来以供金融资本统治和虏虐。“金融资本和同它相适应的国际政策，即归根到底是大国为了在经济上和政治上瓜分世界而斗争的国际政策，造成了许多过渡的国家依附形式。”

Bukharin did not examine the complex state forms of the imperialist era as comprehensively and thoroughly as Lenin did; instead, he examined relatively one-sidedly the comprehensive form of the imperialist state pole itself, i.e., he focused more on the development of the imperialist state itself. In his view, the state power in the imperialist era comprehensively strengthened its intervention in production, exchange, and the ideological sphere, and its logic was state capitalism, “characterized by an extreme complication of functions and a violent intrusion into the economic life of society. It shows a tendency to take over the entire sphere of production and the entire sphere of commodities.” Thus, the role, function, and mechanism of the state underwent a profound deformation, directly subordinating itself to the monopoly bourgeoisie for direct and naked overall exploitation. A huge, all-encompassing state machine was formed—this is the modern imperialist bandit state. It was only later, with the deepening of the world revolution, when Bukharin held important posts in the Comintern, that he deeply recognized the differences in revolutionary paths depending on whether there was a strong proletarian colonial state.

布哈林并未像列宁那样全面详尽地考察帝国主义时代复杂的国家形式，而是比较单一地考察了帝国主义国家这一极的综合形式，即更侧重于关注帝国主义国家本身的发展。在他看来，帝国主义时代国家政权全面加强对生产、交换和意识形态领域的干涉，其逻辑是国家资本主义，“其特点是职能极端复杂化和猛烈地侵入社会的经济生活。它表现出一种要掌握全部生产领域和全部商品领域的倾向”。这样，国家的角色、作用、机能都发生了深刻的变形，直接服从于垄断资产阶级直接进行赤裸裸的整体性剥削。一个巨大的无所不包的国家机器形成了，这便是现代帝国主义强盗国家。直到后来随着世界革命的深入发展，布哈林担任共产国际要职，才深刻认识到有无强大的无产阶级的殖民地国家，其革命路径存在差异。

(4) Different Understandings of the Relationship between Imperialism, Nations, and Colonies

（四）对帝国主义、民族、殖民地关系的认识不同

Regarding the understanding of the relationship between imperialism and the national and colonial questions, Lenin comprehensively considered the general problems of imperialism and the particularities of the national and colonial questions, whereas Bukharin gradually deepened his understanding of this with the development of revolutionary practice. The different concerns of Lenin and Bukharin regarding the forms of the imperialist state reflect, to a certain extent, the differences in their understanding of imperialism and the national and colonial questions.

在帝国主义与民族和殖民地问题的关系认识上，列宁综合考量帝国主义一般问题和民族问题、殖民地问题的特殊性，布哈林是随着革命实践的发展逐渐深化对此的认识。列宁和布哈林关于帝国主义国家形式的不同关切，在一定程度上反映出二人在对帝国主义和民族问题、殖民地问题的认识方面存在的差异。

For Lenin, colonial policy and imperialism are both inevitable products of the development of the basic contradictions of capitalism. Various struggles inevitably occur between imperialist states and colonial and semi-colonial countries or nations, and these struggles will increasingly expand and sharpen. “Imperialism is a handful of ‘great powers’ ‘enslaving’ all nations, ‘enslaving’ all the nations of the world.” The revolutionary proletariat and its party must lead the masses to overthrow imperialism, thereby achieving peace without annexations, i.e., maximally eliminating imperialist colonial policy. Furthermore, Lenin also recognized the intertwined form of imperialism and nationalism, such as social chauvinism. Imperialist states often use the slogan “defending the fatherland,” wearing the mask of nationalism to conceal their true face of exploiting and oppressing other backward nations and countries in the world. Precisely based on the special historical background of the imperialist era, Lenin firmly advocated: “We must link the revolutionary struggle for socialism with the revolutionary program on the national question.”

对列宁而言，殖民政策和帝国主义都是资本主义基本矛盾发展的必然产物，帝国主义国家和殖民地半殖民地国家或民族之间必然发生各种斗争，而且斗争将日益扩大和尖锐化，“帝国主义就是一小撮‘大国’‘奴役’各民族，‘奴役’全世界所有民族”。革命的无产阶级及其政党必须领导人民群众推翻帝国主义，进而实现没有兼并的和平，也就是最大限度地消除帝国主义殖民政策。此外，列宁还认识到帝国主义和民族主义的交织形态，如社会沙文主义。帝国主义国家往往打着“保卫祖国”口号，戴着民族主义的假面罩掩盖其剥削和奴役世界其他落后民族、国家的真面目。正是立足于帝国主义时代的特殊历史背景，列宁坚决主张：“我们应当把争取社会主义的革命斗争同民族问题的革命纲领联系起来”。

Bukharin, on the other hand, mainly tended to focus on the significant role of imperialist states in the world economy, focusing on the inner contradiction between the internationalization and nationalization of imperialist capital. In the early period, he neglected the complexity and differences of the national and colonial questions. Later, with the development of Comintern practice, Bukharin gradually recognized the importance of the national and colonial questions, highly affirming the unique significance of these contents in Lenin’s theory of imperialism, pointing out: “Directly belonging to this general question is another question that has not been answered in any theoretical book. This is the national question and the colonial question.” Subsequently, he continued Lenin’s relevant thinking, attaching great importance to the question of the leadership of the democratic revolution by the proletariat and its party in colonies and semi-colonies.

而布哈林主要倾向于关注帝国主义国家对世界经济的重大作用，关注帝国主义资本国际化和民族化之间的内在矛盾，前期他忽略了民族问题、殖民地问题的复杂性和差异性。后来随着共产国际实践的发展，布哈林逐渐认识到民族问题和殖民地问题的重要性，高度肯定了列宁帝国主义论中这些内容的独特意义，指出：“直接属于这个一般性问题的还有另一个在任何理论书籍中都没有得到解答的问题。这就是民族问题和殖民地问题”。之后，他延续了列宁的相关思考，高度重视殖民地半殖民地无产阶级及其政党对民主革命的领导权问题。

The differences between Lenin and Bukharin in their theories of imperialism demonstrate the real complexity of the historical development of imperialism, also indicate the degree of difference in their grasp of the practice of the world proletarian revolution, and simultaneously reveal the pluralistic forms presented in the development of Marxist theory of imperialism and their different analytical approaches.

列宁和布哈林在帝国主义理论方面的差异，表明了帝国主义历史发展的现实复杂性，也表明了二人对世界无产阶级革命实践把握的程度差别，同时还表明了马克思主义帝国主义理论发展所呈现出的多元形态和二人不同的分析进路。

III. The Intellectual Relationship between Lenin and Bukharin in the Theory of Imperialism

三、列宁和布哈林在帝国主义理论方面的思想关系

From the perspective of intellectual history, theorists such as Lenin, Bukharin, and Luxemburg all contributed to the formation and development of the Marxist theory of imperialism. Lenin was the synthesizer, who advanced the Marxist theory of imperialism to a scientific and systematic level. The intellectual relationship between Lenin and Bukharin’s theories of imperialism is mainly manifested in the following four aspects.

从思想史的角度看，列宁、布哈林、卢森堡等理论家均对马克思主义帝国主义理论的形成与发展作出了贡献，列宁是其中的集大成者，正是他把马克思主义帝国主义理论推进到了科学系统的高度。列宁和布哈林的帝国主义理论的思想关系主要体现为下述四种。

(1) Chronological Relationship of Texts

（一）文本先后关系

Some Western scholars, by simply comparing the writing dates of Bukharin’s *Imperialism and World Economy* and Lenin’s *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, conclude that Bukharin studied and analyzed the problem of imperialism earlier than Lenin. This conclusion is not rigorous. For example, Sidney Heitman once pointed out that Bukharin’s *Imperialism and World Economy* was published a year earlier than Lenin’s *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, and “the main ideas Bukharin expressed in this article were reflected a year later in Lenin’s major work *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, and Lenin’s work is largely indebted to Bukharin’s research and arguments.”

部分西方学者通过简单比较布哈林的《世界经济和帝国主义》和列宁的《帝国主义论》这两本书的撰写时间先后，就得出布哈林比列宁更早地研究和分析帝国主义问题这个结论是不严谨的。如西德尼·海特曼（Sidney Heitman）曾指出，布哈林的《世界经济和帝国主义》比列宁的《帝国主义论》早发表一年，“布哈林在这篇文章中表现的主要思想一年之后在列宁的主要著作《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》中反映了出来，列宁的这部著作多半应归功于布哈林的研究和论断”。

In fact, Hettman’s conclusion is biased. Through an examination of the texts, it can be clearly seen that, on the one hand, Lenin’s attention to the phenomenon of imperialism began much earlier than Bukharin’s. Lenin’s scattered expressions on the question of imperialism can be traced back to texts such as the *Draft Programme of the Social-Democratic Party* (1895), *The War in China* (1900), *Lessons of the Crisis* (1901), *Marxism and Revisionism* (1908), and *The Concentration of Production in Russia* (1912). In August 1904, Lenin also set about translating Hobson’s *Imperialism* (the manuscript has not yet been found), and in his book *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* he repeatedly cites Hobson’s arguments and evidence. Bukharin’s research on the theory of imperialism was carried out after the outbreak of the First World War; the earliest evidence of his work on this topic is an article on the world economy and imperialism published in the journal *Kommunist* in September 1915.

实际上，海特曼的这个结论有失偏颇。通过考察文本，可以清晰地看到，一方面，列宁对帝国主义现象的关注要比布哈林早很多。列宁关于帝国主义问题的零星表述可以追溯至1895年的《社会民主党纲领草案》、1900年的《中国的战争》、1901年的《危机的教训》、1908年的《马克思主义与修正主义》和1912年的《俄国的生产集中》等文本，列宁在1904年8月还曾着手翻译霍布森的《帝国主义》一书（译稿目前尚未找到），并在《帝国主义论》一书中多次引用霍布森的有关论点论据。布哈林对帝国主义理论的研究是在第一次世界大战爆发以后进行的，他较早进行这一主题研究的证据是1915年9月发表在《共产党人》杂志上关于世界经济和帝国主义的文章。

On the other hand, Lenin’s theoretical analysis of imperialism began earlier than Bukharin’s. Lenin’s concentrated discussions on the question of imperialism are found in articles such as *Report on the Proletariat and the War* (1914), *May Day and the War* (1915), *The Collapse of the Second International* (1915), *Socialism and War* (1915), and *On the Slogan for a United States of Europe* (1915). For instance, in *Report on the Proletariat and the War*, Lenin already pointed out profoundly: “The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century are characterized by imperialist politics… Imperialism is a state in which capitalism has accomplished everything it could and is turning towards decline.” This fully reflects that Lenin had already analyzed the phenomenon of imperialism long before Bukharin wrote *Imperialism and the World Economy*.

另一方面，列宁对帝国主义进行理论分析要比布哈林早。列宁对帝国主义问题的集中论述体现在1914年的《关于无产阶级和战争的报告》、1915年的《五一节和战争》《第二国际的破产》《社会主义与战争》和《论欧洲联邦口号》等文章中。比如，列宁在《关于无产阶级和战争的报告》中就已深刻地指出：“19世纪末和20世纪初的特征是帝国主义政治……帝国主义是资本主义完成了它所能完成的一切而转向衰落的这样一种状态。”这充分反映出列宁早在布哈林写就《世界经济和帝国主义》之前就已经分析帝国主义现象了。

Bukharin conducted a relatively in-depth analysis of the question of imperialism mainly in articles or works such as *Imperialism and the World Economy* (1915), *The Imperialist Robber State* (1916), *The Economics of the Transition Period* (1920), and *Imperialism and the Accumulation of Capital* (1925). His research greatly enriched and developed the Marxist theory of imperialism.

布哈林主要是在1915年的《世界经济和帝国主义》、1916年的《帝国主义强盗国家》、1920年的《过渡时期经济学》、1925年的《帝国主义和资本积累》等文章或著作中对帝国主义问题进行了较为深入的分析，他的研究极大地丰富和发展了马克思主义帝国主义理论。

(2) The Relationship of Ideological Reference

（二）思想借鉴关系

Some Western scholars one-sidedly emphasize that Lenin’s theory of imperialism was mainly influenced by Bukharin. For example, David McLellan once pointed out that Lenin’s *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* was not a highly original work; he specifically referred to the theories of Hobson and Hilferding, but a more direct source was Bukharin’s *Imperialism and the World Economy*, which was written a few months before Lenin’s book was published.

部分西方学者片面强调列宁帝国主义论的提出主要是受到布哈林的影响，如大卫·麦克莱伦（David Mclellan）曾指出，列宁《帝国主义论》并不是一部高度独创性的著作，他具体参考了霍布森、希法亭的理论，但更直接的资料来源却是布哈林的《世界经济和帝国主义》，该书在列宁的《帝国主义论》出版的前几个月写成。

McLellan’s conclusion is one-sided. Objectively speaking, Lenin’s theory of imperialism drew on a very rich range of ideological resources; Bukharin’s theory of imperialism was one of these, but not the main, and certainly not the only, source of influence. Lenin’s *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* uses an extremely rich body of material, referencing 148 books and 232 articles in German, French, English, and Russian, covering statistical data from imperialist countries and the research findings of bourgeois scholars. In this book, Lenin directly cites the writings of Hobson, Hilferding, and others more frequently than he cites Bukharin. Lenin did indeed absorb some of Bukharin’s useful ideas, but Bukharin’s influence on him was not the most important. For instance, in the chapter “Banks and Their New Role” in *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Lenin refers to Bukharin: “Thus, on the one hand, bank capital and industrial capital are increasingly merging, or, in the very apt expression of N. I. Bukharin, growing together; on the other hand, banks are developing into institutions of a truly ‘all-embracing character’.”

麦克莱伦这一结论流于片面。客观地讲，列宁帝国主义论的思想借鉴资源十分丰富，布哈林的帝国主义论是其中之一但不是主要的、更不是唯一的影响源。列宁《帝国主义论》一书运用的材料相当丰富，参考了德文、法文、英文和俄文的148本书籍和232篇文章，涉及帝国主义国家的统计资料、资产阶级学者的研究成果等。在这本书中，列宁直接引用霍布森、希法亭等人的论述比引用布哈林的更多。列宁的确吸收了布哈林的一些有益思想，但他对列宁的影响并非是最重要的。比如列宁在《帝国主义论》中的“银行和银行的新作用”中谈到布哈林：“这样，一方面是银行资本和工业资本日益融合，或者用尼·伊·布哈林的很恰当的说法，日益长合在一起，另一方面是银行发展成为具有真正‘包罗一切的性质’的机构”。

At the same time, Bukharin also actively drew on Lenin’s discussions of imperialism. In 1917, when supplementing his book *Imperialism and the World Economy*, he cited the table compiled by Lenin on the “Distribution of Colonies and Colonial Territories in the World Economy and Imperialism.” Later, he also adopted Lenin’s definition of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, indicating a major shift in Bukharin’s theory of imperialism.

与此同时，布哈林也积极借鉴列宁对帝国主义的论述。1917年，他在补充《世界经济和帝国主义》一书时引用了列宁编制的“世界经济和帝国主义列强的殖民地领土”分配情况表。后来，他还借鉴了列宁关于帝国主义是资本主义的最后阶段的定义，这表明布哈林帝国主义理论发生了重大的变化。

It should be recognized that the series of economic, political, and social conditions arising from the development of capitalism to the stage of imperialism directly impelled Lenin, Bukharin, and others to investigate the question of imperialism. This was a demand of the era and of history. Their mutual ideological reference was not only possible but also necessary.

应当看到，资本主义发展到帝国主义阶段的一系列经济政治社会状况直接推动了列宁、布哈林等人去探究帝国主义问题，这是时代和历史的要求，他们之间思想互为借鉴不仅是可能的，而且也是必要的。

(3) The Relationship of Methodological Critique

（三）方法批判关系

The scientific nature of the Marxist theory of imperialism concerns not only its basic viewpoints but also its application of method. Some Western scholars have not deeply grasped the different degrees to which Lenin and Bukharin mastered dialectical materialism and the impact of this on their theoretical constructions.

马克思主义帝国主义理论的科学性不仅关乎基本观点，而且也关乎方法运用。部分西方学者并没有深刻意识到列宁和布哈林对唯物辩证法的不同掌握程度及对其理论构造的影响。

Lenin systematically studied and mastered dialectical materialism, and it was precisely because he adhered to a scientific methodology that he was able to advance the Marxist theory of imperialism to a scientific and systematic stage. Bukharin’s theory of imperialism, in terms of the theory itself, still contained immature and non-dialectical elements. For example, his idea, analyzed earlier, about the elimination of competitive relations within imperialist states was related to his temporary failure to fully master dialectical materialism. Lenin once commented: “Bukharin is not only the Party’s most valuable and greatest theoretician, he is also rightly regarded as the favorite of the whole Party; but it is very doubtful whether his theoretical views can be considered fully Marxist, for there is something scholastic in them (he has never studied dialectics, and I think—he has never fully understood it).” [1]1 V. I. Lenin, *Collected Works*, Vol. 43, p. 339. (This note provides the source for Lenin’s evaluation of Bukharin’s theoretical views, which is a direct quotation within the text.) Bukharin later took Lenin’s critical comments to heart, concentrated on studying the Marxist question of dialectics, and wrote the book *Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology*. In this book, Bukharin highly praised Lenin’s brilliant analysis of capitalism and imperialism: “These scientific masterpieces are the most perfect in terms of their dialectical depth and the sharpness of their structural movement; they guide the complex and intricate situation towards the future.”

列宁曾系统研究并掌握了唯物辩证法，也正是因为坚持了科学的方法论，列宁才能够把马克思主义帝国主义理论研究推向科学、系统的阶段。而布哈林帝国主义论就其理论本身而言还存在着不成熟、非辩证的地方。比如，前文分析的他关于帝国主义国家内部竞争关系消除的思想，与其暂时未能全面掌握唯物辩证法有关。列宁曾评价道：“布哈林不仅是党的最宝贵的和最大的理论家，他也理所当然被认为是全党喜欢的人物，但是他的理论观点能不能说是完全马克思主义的，很值得怀疑，因为其中有某种烦琐哲学的东西（他从来没有学过辩证法，因而——我想——他从来没有完全理解辩证法）。”布哈林后来吸取列宁的批评意见，集中研究了马克思主义的辩证法问题，写就《辩证法概论》一书。在书中，布哈林高度评价了列宁关于资本主义和帝国主义的天才分析：“这些科学性的杰作从它们的辩证深度和结构运动的尖锐性来说是最完美的，它们把错综复杂的形势导向未来。”

Thus, the development of Bukharin’s relevant theories included a domain of methodological reflection, which is not unrelated to Lenin’s constructive criticism of him.

可见，在布哈林的有关理论发展过程中包含了方法反思域，这一点与列宁对他的建设性批评不无关系。

(4) The Relationship of Theoretical Transcendence

（四）理论超越关系

Some Western scholars have failed to fully explain the ideological relationship between Lenin’s theory of imperialism and those of his contemporaries, and have even subjectively and one-sidedly denied the originality of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. For example, Stephen Cohen selectively emphasizes that Bukharin’s *Imperialism and the World Economy* was a landmark work, arguing that it was the first systematic exposition of the question of imperialism by a Bolshevik, and that its relevant content or ideas were extensively adopted by Lenin in *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*.

部分西方学者未能完整说明列宁和同时代理论家帝国主义理论的思想关系问题，甚至主观片面地否定列宁帝国主义论的原创性。如斯蒂芬·科恩（Stephan Cohen）有选择性地强调布哈林的《世界经济和帝国主义》具有里程碑意义，认为该书是布尔什维克对帝国主义问题的第一次系统性阐述，相关内容或思想得到列宁《帝国主义论》的大量采用。

Cohen’s view is not rigorous. In fact, based on a dialectical investigation of the era of imperialism, Lenin actively drew on the useful analyses of imperialism by Bukharin, Luxemburg, and others, and further deepened and expanded his own thinking. Zheng Yifan points out: “In his study of imperialism and the national question, Lenin absorbed some of Bukharin’s research results, and on this basis deepened the research, thereby creatively developing Marxism.” [2]2 Zheng Yifan, *Bukharin’s Theory of Imperialism*, p. 120. (This note provides the source for the Chinese scholar Zheng Yifan’s assessment of the relationship between Lenin’s and Bukharin’s work on imperialism.) Compared to Bukharin, Lenin was more of a revolutionary realist; he sought to open up a political path for transforming the real world within the complex relationship between theory and practice. Bukharin, on the other hand, remained more at the level of abstract theoretical reflection on the question of imperialism and its development. Lenin was 18 years older than Bukharin. Bukharin had immense respect for Lenin, and even though there were many debates between them, Lenin still held great expectations for Bukharin. After Lenin’s death, Bukharin continued to research questions such as the imperialist state, capitalist accumulation, and national-democratic revolutions in colonies and semi-colonies, further deepening his study of imperialism and, to a certain extent, enriching and developing Lenin’s theory of imperialism, making a very positive contribution to the development of the Marxist theory of imperialism and the state.

科恩的这一观点是欠严谨的。实际上，基于对帝国主义时代的辩证考察，列宁积极借鉴布哈林、卢森堡等人对帝国主义的有益分析，进一步深化拓展了相关思考。郑异凡指出：“列宁在帝国主义和国家问题的研究中吸收了布哈林的某些研究成果，并且在此基础上把研究深化，从而创造性地发展了马克思主义。”较之于布哈林，列宁更多是一个革命的现实主义者，他力图在理论和实践的复杂关系中开辟一条改造现实世界的政治道路，而布哈林更多是停留在对帝国主义问题及其发展的理论抽象思考上。列宁比布哈林大了18岁，布哈林对列宁是无比尊敬的，即使二人之间有过不少争论，列宁对布哈林还是满怀期许的。布哈林在列宁逝世后，继续对帝国主义国家、资本主义积累和殖民地半殖民地民族民主革命等问题进行研究，进一步深化了他对帝国主义问题的研究，也在一定程度上丰富发展了列宁帝国主义论，为推动马克思主义帝国主义理论和国家学说的发展作出了十分积极的贡献。

IV. Reaffirming the Unique Contributions and Multidimensional Purport of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

四、重申列宁帝国主义论的独特贡献与多维旨趣

The above analysis shows that Lenin and Bukharin, in their studies of imperialism, reached both identical conclusions and points of difference, which can complement each other. Whether proceeding from the textual facts, from an examination of the application of dialectical materialism, or from the completeness of the theory, Lenin answered the various questions of the era of imperialism earlier, more comprehensively and profoundly, and more systematically and scientifically than Bukharin, extremely powerfully advancing Marxist theory of imperialism into a mature stage and establishing the classical interpretive paradigm. Lenin is without doubt the important founder of the Marxist theory of imperialism. The practice of some Western scholars, who, by one-sidedly exaggerating or selectively seizing upon Bukharin’s theory of imperialism, belittle or even negate Lenin’s theory of imperialism, is completely unacceptable. Lenin’s theory of imperialism possesses an indisputable historical status and contemporary value in the development of Marxist theory and practice and in the history of the international communist movement; the multi-dimensional purport of this theory deserves to be reaffirmed.

上述分析表明，列宁和布哈林在对帝国主义的研究中既得出了相同的结论，也有不同之处，可以互为促进。无论是从文本事实出发，还是基于对唯物辩证法的运用考察，抑或基于理论的完整性，列宁都比布哈林更早、更为全面深刻、更加系统科学地回答了帝国主义时代诸问题，极其有力地推动了马克思主义帝国主义理论进入成熟阶段，并确立了经典解释范式。列宁毫无疑义是马克思主义帝国主义理论的重要创始人。部分西方学者通过片面扩大或者选择性捕捉布哈林帝国主义论，压低甚至否定列宁帝国主义论的做法是完全不可取的。列宁帝国主义论在马克思主义理论和实践的发展进程中、在国际共运史上具有无可争辩的历史地位和当代价值，这一理论所具有的多维旨趣值得重申。

First, in terms of theoretical development, Lenin, inheriting the path of political economy analysis of Marx and Engels, focused on examining the new stage of capitalist development, that is, the stage of monopoly capitalism, and the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production and its various manifestations. He profoundly revealed monopoly, this intrinsic determination of capitalism with ontological significance, deeply analyzed the historical origins, actual role and developmental trends of finance capital, and put forward the law of uneven political and economic development of capitalism, further enriching and developing Marxist political economy and scientific socialism.

第一，在理论发展上，列宁秉承马克思、恩格斯的政治经济学分析路径，着重考察资本主义发展新阶段，即垄断资本主义阶段的生产力和生产关系矛盾运动及其各种表现，深刻揭示了垄断这个带有本体论意义的资本主义内在规定性，深入分析了金融资本的历史由来、现实作用和发展趋向，提出了资本主义政治经济发展不平衡规律，进一步丰富和发展了马克思主义政治经济学和科学社会主义。

Second, in terms of historical contribution, Lenin’s theory of imperialism points out that imperialism is the eve of the proletarian social revolution, advocates timely transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war, and powerfully promoted the occurrence and development of the February Revolution and the October Revolution in Russia. Through the exemplary influence of the October Revolution and the promotion of the Communist International, Lenin’s theory of imperialism played an active guiding and promoting role in advancing the national liberation movements and the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggles in the colonies and semi-colonies. This was simultaneously proven by the successful revolutionary practice of the Communist Party of China leading the Chinese people to establish the People’s Republic of China and completely break through the imperialist Eastern front.

第二，在历史贡献上，列宁帝国主义论指明帝国主义是无产阶级社会革命的前夜，主张适时变帝国主义战争为国内战争，有力地推动了俄国二月革命和十月革命的发生、发展。经由十月革命的示范影响和共产国际的推动，列宁的帝国主义论对推动殖民地半殖民地的民族解放运动和反帝反封建斗争起到了积极的引导和促进作用，这一点同时也为中国共产党领导中国人民建立中华人民共和国、彻底冲破帝国主义东方战线的成功革命实践所证明。

Third, in terms of understanding reality, Lenin’s theory of imperialism profoundly elucidates monopoly, the important economic foundation of the imperialist era, and finance capital, the main capital form of the imperialist era. These basic theses provide an important theoretical reference for examining the financialization of the capitalist economy and financial crises in the era of globalization. The present era is not far from the era in which Lenin lived; the crises of the imperialist era have further deepened. Various forms of monopoly and monopoly organizations, the degree of global economic financialization, and the degree of domination by finance capital are even more severe than in Lenin’s era. The present era remains the era of finance-monopoly capitalism; Lenin’s theory of imperialism still possesses profound guiding significance in the contemporary era.

第三，在现实认识上，列宁帝国主义论深刻地阐明了垄断这一帝国主义时代的重要经济基础和金融资本这一帝国主义时代的主要资本形态，这些基本论断为审视全球化时代的资本主义经济金融化、金融危机提供了重要的理论参照。当今时代离列宁所处的时代并不遥远，帝国主义时代的危机进一步深化，各种形式的垄断和垄断组织、世界经济金融化程度、金融资本统治的程度较之于列宁时代有过之而无不及。当今时代依然是金融垄断资本主义的时代，列宁帝国主义论在当代依然具有深刻的指导意义。

Fourth, in terms of practical path, Lenin’s theory of imperialism not only profoundly reveals a series of essential characteristics and basic contradictions of the era of finance-monopoly capitalism, but also points out the practical essence of this theory, namely, to criticize, oppose and transcend imperialism. Imperialism is not only history but also reality; contemporary imperialism will certainly last for a considerable period, and world intercourse will certainly further expand and deepen with the continuous improvement of the degree of globalization. On the one hand, the occurrence and evolution of the international financial crisis has already shown that the internal contradictions and conflicts of imperialism have reached a new depth; on the other hand, the forces of world socialism are continuously strengthening. The practical essence of Lenin’s theory of imperialism provides a path reference and spiritual guidance for further transcending imperialism under new historical conditions.

第四，在实践路径上，列宁帝国主义论不仅深刻地揭示了金融垄断资本主义时代的一系列本质特征、基本矛盾，而且也指出这一理论的实践要义，即批判、反对并超越帝国主义。帝国主义不仅是历史，也是现实，当代帝国主义必定会持续相当长的时段，世界交往必定会随着全球化程度不断提高而进一步拓展拓深。一方面，国际金融危机的发生演变业已表明帝国主义内在矛盾冲突已达到一个新的深度；另一方面，世界社会主义力量在不断增强，列宁帝国主义论的实践要义为新的历史条件下进一步超越帝国主义提供了路径参照和精神引领。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心