The Contemporary Situation and Clarification of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism — From the Perspective of the Dialectical Relationship between Politics and Economics

Lenin’s theory of imperialism is an important marker of Marxism’s leapfrog development in the era of monopoly capitalism. This theory not only reveals the economic essence and developmental tendencies of the imperialist stage but also critically exposes the petty-bourgeois opportunist and conciliatory ideologies that posed a severe challenge to the development of Marxism during the First World War. From a dialectical and critical standpoint, it discloses the law of uneven political and economic development under imperialism and the great historical task of the proletarian revolution. It can be said that the foundation of Lenin’s entire undertaking is the theory of imperialism. Entering the 21st century, the United States, by virtue of its political and military hegemony in the global capitalist system, has driven the restructuring of international political and economic relations and has re-demarcated spheres of influence. Under its dominance, international capitalism has achieved large-scale expansion in areas such as trade, investment, and the transfer of public resources, and the role of the bourgeois state apparatus in the overall operation of capitalism has become increasingly prominent. In this context, some Western scholars have subjected classical theories of imperialism to critical scrutiny. They argue that early theorists represented by Lenin placed excessive emphasis on the economic dimension in their analysis of imperialism, relatively neglecting its geopolitical and state-theoretical connotations. In trying to foreground the political face of imperialism, these scholars deliberately avoid the decisive role of the economic base in socio-historical development, thereby deviating from the fundamental principles of historical materialism. In these circumstances, returning to Lenin’s theory of imperialism and deeply excavating its theoretical essence and methodological value can provide us with a more comprehensive and profound perspective for better understanding and responding to the various new phenomena and new challenges of contemporary imperialism.

列宁的帝国主义理论是马克思主义在垄断资本主义时代跨越式发展的重要标志。该理论不仅揭示了帝国主义阶段的经济本质与发展趋势，而且批判性地揭露了第一次世界大战期间对马克思主义发展构成严峻挑战的小资产阶级机会主义和调和主义意识形态，站在辩证和批判的立场上揭示了帝国主义政治经济不平衡规律与无产阶级革命的伟大历史任务。可以说，列宁全部事业的基石就是帝国主义论。进入21世纪，美国凭借其在全球资本主义体系中的政治与军事霸权，推动了国际政治经济关系的重组，并重新划定了势力边界。在其主导下，国际资本主义在贸易、投资和公共资源转移等领域实现了大规模扩张，资产阶级国家机器在资本主义整体运行中的作用日益凸显。在此背景下，部分西方学者对经典帝国主义理论进行了诸多批判性审视。他们认为，以列宁为代表的早期理论家对帝国主义的分析过于侧重经济维度，而相对忽视了其地缘政治与国家理论层面的内涵。这些学者在力图凸显帝国主义的政治面相的过程中，刻意回避经济基础在社会历史发展中的决定性作用，从而背离了历史唯物主义的基本原则。在这种情况下，重新回归列宁的帝国主义理论，深入挖掘其理论精髓和方法论价值，能够为我们提供一个更为全面、深刻的视角，以更好地理解和应对当代帝国主义的种种新现象与新挑战。

I. The Political-Economic Dimension of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

一、列宁帝国主义理论的政治—经济面向

Lenin’s theory of imperialism is a systematic scientific theory constituted by multiple works. Lenin, basing himself on the “stubborn facts” of the imperialist era and relying on “the irrefutable summary data of bourgeois statistics and the confessions of bourgeois scholars from various countries,” carried out a holistic analysis of it. In his view, capitalism in the era of imperialism had already formed an international system dominated by a handful of developed countries that exercised colonial rule and financial exploitation over the vast majority of the global population, “making the situation of the masses increasingly worse, both economically and politically” [n].

列宁的帝国主义理论是由多部著作共同构成的一个系统的科学理论。列宁立足于帝国主义时代的“顽强事实”，并依据“无可争辩的资产阶级统计的综合材料和各国资产阶级学者的自白”，对其进行了整体性的剖析。在他看来，帝国主义时代的资本主义已经形成一个由少数发达国家主导的对全球绝大多数人口实施殖民统治和金融剥削的国际体系，无论在“经济方面或政治方面都使群众的处境日趋恶化”。

(1) The Capitalist Political Hegemony Implicit in the Economic Characteristics of Imperialism

（一）帝国主义经济特征中蕴含的资本主义政治霸权

In *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, Lenin summarized the five basic features of imperialism, namely: the high concentration of production and capital gives rise to monopoly organizations that play a decisive role in economic life; bank capital and industrial capital merge into finance capital, and on this basis a financial oligarchy is formed; the export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities, acquires exceptional importance; international monopoly capitalist associations are formed that divide up the world; and the capitalist great powers have completed the division of the world’s territory. The first two features indicate that the high degree of economic concentration and monopoly inevitably lead to the coercive intervention of state power in the economy, marking the transition of capitalism from the stage of free competition to the stage of monopoly; the latter three features reveal that monopoly capital, in pursuit of super-profits, seeks “to annex politically those countries where their most speculative investments are located” [n], thereby intensifying the contradictions and antagonisms both within imperialist states and between imperialist and non-imperialist states.

在《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》中，列宁概括了帝国主义的五个基本特征，即：生产和资本的高度集中造成了在经济生活中起决定作用的垄断组织；银行资本和工业资本融合为金融资本并在此基础上形成了金融寡头；和商品输出不同的资本输出具有特别重要的意义；瓜分世界的资本家国际垄断同盟已经形成；资本主义列强已把世界上的领土瓜分完毕。前两个特征表明经济的高度集中与垄断必然导致国家权力对经济的强制干预，标志着资本主义从自由竞争阶段进入垄断阶段；后三个特征则揭示出垄断资本为追逐超额利润而设法“在政治上兼并那些有他们的最富有投机性的投资的国家”，由此激化了帝国主义国家内部以及帝国主义国家与非帝国主义国家之间的矛盾和对立。

As Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have noted, “One of the most striking aspects of Lenin’s analysis is his critique of imperialism as a political concept. He places the question of modern sovereignty and the question of capitalist development together under the same critical lens, and by interweaving different critical lines, he transcends modernity in his observation.” Lenin used the term “colonial territory” to refer to both formal colonies and informal dependent countries that “are politically, formally independent, but are in fact enmeshed in a net of financial and diplomatic dependence” [n]. In imperialist states, monopoly capital groups actively promote their own colonial expansion, seeking to secure existing sources of raw materials while striving to control various regions with potential resource value. This interest directly drove the process of the great powers’ division of the world. Control over colonies built a solid competitive barrier for monopoly capital, enabling it to effectively avoid various market risks. At the same time, supported by finance capital, non-economic policies and ideologies gradually took shape within imperialist states, and these elements collectively strengthened the tendency toward external colonial expansion. Therefore, imperialism inevitably intensifies the contradictions between the vast majority of the world’s propertyless and the tiny minority of property-owners, between the broad proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In summary, the salient political characteristic of imperialism is the comprehensive reactionary trend and the intensification of national oppression resulting from the strong rule of the financial oligarchy and the weakening or elimination of free competition. “The political superstructure of this new economy, monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism), is the shift from democracy to political reaction” [n].

正如迈克尔·哈特（MichaelHardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（AntonioNegri）所提到的，“列宁分析中最引人注目的方面之一是他对帝国主义作为政治概念的批判。他将现代主权的疑问和资本主义发展的疑问一起放到一个同一批判的镜头下，并且通过把不同的批判路线交织在一处的方法，超越现代性进行观察”。列宁用“殖民领土”这个词来指代正式的殖民地和非正式的附属国，“它们在政治上、形式上是独立的，实际上却被金融和外交方面的依附关系的罗网缠绕着”。在帝国主义国家，垄断资本集团积极推动本国的殖民扩张，在稳固既有原料产地的同时，力图控制各类具备潜在资源价值的地区，这一利益诉求直接驱动了列强瓜分世界的进程。对殖民地的掌控为垄断资本构筑起坚实的竞争壁垒，使其能够有效规避各类市场风险。与此同时，在金融资本的支撑下，帝国主义国家内部逐渐形成了非经济导向的政策与意识形态，这些元素合力增强了对外殖民扩张的倾向。因此，帝国主义必然激化世界范围内绝大多数无产者与极少数有产者、广大无产阶级与资产阶级之间的矛盾。概括来说，帝国主义在政治上的显著特征，是由金融寡头的强势统治和自由竞争被削弱或消除所导致的全面反动趋势以及民族压迫的加剧。“这种新的经济即垄断资本主义（帝国主义就是垄断资本主义）的政治上层建筑，就是从民主转向政治反动”。

It is clear that the internal contradictions of capitalism are rooted in the institutional defects of capitalism. They will not ease with the development of imperialism but will instead diffuse into all levels of capitalist society, leading to various conflicts and crises. Imperialist states exhibit a pronounced militarist tendency, and the bourgeoisie displays an unprincipled greed in the process of extracting profits, “striving to turn the few most privileged and richest nations into permanent parasites on others, enjoying a life of ease by exploiting blacks and Indians, etc., and keeping them down with the latest militarism equipped with the most sophisticated murderous weapons” [n]. To offload their domestic crises of overproduction and alleviate class contradictions, the monopoly bourgeoisie often uses the state apparatus to pursue policies of external expansion, escalating domestic economic competition into political confrontation between nations. Therefore, economic monopoly requires political hegemony to sustain it, while the consolidation of political hegemony relies on military power to support it. The entanglement between the two causes the economic contradictions within imperialist states to constantly spill over, ultimately evolving into military conflicts for world hegemony. As Lenin stated: “As long as private ownership of the means of production exists… imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable” [n]. The outbreak of the First World War was a concentrated manifestation of this logic: the various imperialist powers, in order to redivide the world and break through the geographical constraints on monopoly capital’s development, did not hesitate to drag the entire globe into the abyss of war. It is thus evident that, as long as the logic of private ownership of the means of production and monopoly capital’s pursuit of profit remains unchanged, the economic roots of imperialist wars will not disappear, and the channel through which political conflicts evolve into military conflicts will always remain open.

可以明确的是，资本主义的内在矛盾扎根于资本主义的制度缺陷，其不仅不会随着帝国主义的发展而缓和，反而会弥散到资本主义社会的各个层面，导致各种各样的冲突与危机。帝国主义国家表现出鲜明的军国主义倾向，资产阶级在攫取利润的过程中展现了无原则的贪婪，“力求把少数享有特权的最富的民族变为叮在他人身上的永久寄生虫，靠剥削黑人和印度人等等来安享清福，用装备着精良的杀人武器的最新军国主义来压服他们”。垄断资产阶级为了转嫁国内生产过剩危机、缓解阶级矛盾，往往借助国家机器推行对外扩张政策，将国内的经济竞争升级为国家间的政治对抗。因此，经济上的垄断地位需要政治霸权来维系，而政治霸权的巩固又仰赖军事力量来支撑。两者之间的相互勾连使得帝国主义国家内部的经济矛盾不断外溢，最终演化为争夺世界霸权的军事冲突。正如列宁所言：“只要生产资料私有制还存在……帝国主义战争是绝对不可避免的。”第一次世界大战的爆发正是这一逻辑的集中体现，各帝国主义国家为了重新瓜分世界、打破垄断资本发展的地缘束缚，不惜将全球拖入战争的深渊。可见，只要生产资料私有制和垄断资本追逐利润的逻辑不变，帝国主义战争的经济根源就不会消失，政治冲突演变为军事冲突的通道也就始终敞开。

(2) The Potential for Socialist Revolution Implicit in the Economic Trends of Imperialism

（二）帝国主义经济趋势中蕴含的社会主义革命潜能

The theory of imperialism advanced by Lenin, oriented by a profound sense of problematics and real-world concern, regards imperialism in its theoretical framework as a transitional form in the development of capitalism and the eve of the proletarian socialist revolution. This view constitutes the core political value of the theory of imperialism.

列宁所提出的帝国主义理论，以深刻的问题意识与现实关切为取向，在其理论架构中将帝国主义视为资本主义发展历程中的一个过渡性形态和无产阶级社会主义革命的前夜，这一观点构成了帝国主义理论的核心政治价值所在。

Parasitism is a “very important aspect” of imperialism. The operational mechanism of finance capital further promotes the separation between ownership and management rights, leading capitalists to gradually withdraw from direct productive activities and turn to a狂热 pursuit of transactions in financial products. With the expansion of capital export and the deployment of financial capital networks on a global scale, financial oligarchs can obtain huge profits merely by “clipping coupons” without engaging in production and operation, thus giving rise to a “professional” class of “rentiers.” Alongside the colonial expansion of imperialism, “rentier states” began to appear that extracted high profits by usury (interest, stocks, securities, etc.) to colonies and dependent countries. This is the essence of the parasitism of imperialism. Another characteristic of the imperialist era closely linked to parasitism is its decay, manifested as the “stagnation” of socio-economic development. Lenin noted that under the rule of finance capital, monopoly relations of production hindered the progress of productive forces, leading to blockages in technology and production. For monopoly capitalists, whether to promote technological innovation depends entirely on the amount of profit they can obtain. As long as existing technology is sufficient to maintain and consolidate their monopoly position and continuously extract high monopoly profits, promoting technological progress and liberating productive forces is meaningless to them; their core concern is how to stabilize monopoly prices and monopoly profits in the long term. To this end, monopoly capital even goes so far as to buy up new technologies and shelve them—this is the key crux of the decay of imperialism.

寄生性是帝国主义的一个“非常重要的方面”。金融资本的运作机制进一步推动了所有权与经营权之间的分离，导致资本家逐渐从直接的生产活动中抽离，转向对金融产品的交易活动的狂热追求。随着资本输出的扩大和金融资本网络在全球范围内的布展，金融寡头只需“剪息票”而无需从事生产经营就能获取巨额利润，于是出现了“专职”的“食利者阶层”。随着帝国主义的殖民扩张，向殖民地和附属国放高利贷（利息、股票、证券等）来攫取高额利润的“食利国”开始出现。这就是帝国主义寄生性的实质。另一个与寄生性密切联系的帝国主义时代特征是表现为社会经济发展“停滞”的腐朽性。列宁注意到，在金融资本统治下的垄断生产关系妨碍了生产力的进步，导致了技术和生产的阻塞。对垄断资本家而言，是否推行技术革新完全取决于其所能获得的利润多少。只要现有技术足以维持并巩固其垄断地位、持续攫取高额垄断利润，推动技术进步与解放生产力便对其毫无意义，如何长期稳固垄断价格与垄断利润才是其核心关切。为此，垄断资本甚至不惜将新技术买断后束之高阁，这正是帝国主义腐朽性的关键症结。

It is noteworthy that the parasitism and decay peculiar to imperialism politically led to an international split in the workers’ movement. The monopoly bourgeoisie used part of the monopoly profits they extracted to bribe skilled workers and worker leaders, granting them various privileges, including generous salaries, superior living conditions, and higher social status. In return, these “labor aristocrats” willingly became the servants of finance capital and agents for the exploitation of workers by capitalists. Lenin believed that “without understanding the economic roots of this phenomenon, and without fully grasping its political and social significance, one cannot take a single step forward in solving the practical tasks of the communist movement and the impending social revolution.” It can be seen that the development of finance capital actually transformed the political structure of society.

值得注意的是，帝国主义所特有的寄生性和腐朽性在政治上导致了工人运动的国际性分裂。垄断资产阶级将其赚取的一部分垄断利润拿来收买熟练工人和工人领袖，给予他们各方面特权，包括丰厚的薪酬、优越的生活条件、较高的社会地位。作为回报，这些“工人贵族”甘愿成为金融资本的奴仆和资本家剥削工人的代理人。列宁认为，“如果不懂这个现象的经济根源，如果不充分认识这个现象的政治意义和社会意义，那么，在解决共产主义运动和即将到来的社会革命和实践任务方面，就会一步也不能前进”。可以看到，金融资本的发展实际上也改变了社会的政治结构。

Moreover, the parasitism and decay of imperialism deeply penetrated and shaped its political form, ultimately inevitably intensifying class and national contradictions, leading to its burial by the very revolutionary forces it nurtured. Lenin pointed out that imperialism is the era of finance capital and monopolies, and finance capital and monopolies everywhere tend toward domination rather than freedom. The result of this tendency is the outbreak of full-scale reaction under all political systems. [1]1 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 445. To maintain super-profits, monopoly capital inevitably intensifies confrontations among states over raw material sources and investment markets, making imperialist war a characteristic of the era. At the same time, the capitalist crises and loosening of the chain of domination caused by war create historical conditions for proletarian revolution. Lenin thus called for using the crisis of rule triggered by imperialist war to “turn the imperialist war into a civil war,” transforming international conflict into a domestic revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule.

此外，帝国主义的寄生性与腐朽性深刻渗透并塑造了其政治形态，最终必然激化阶级与民族矛盾，导致其被自身所孕育的革命力量所埋葬。列宁指出，帝国主义是金融资本和垄断组织的时代，金融资本和垄断组织到处都带有统治的趋向而不是自由的趋向。这种趋势的结果，就是在一切政治制度下都发生全面的反动。垄断资本为维持超额利润，势必激化国家间争夺原料产地、投资市场的对抗，使帝国主义战争成为其时代特征。与此同时，战争造成的资本主义危机与统治链条的松动，也为无产阶级革命创造了历史条件。列宁由此号召利用帝国主义战争引发的统治危机，“变帝国主义战争为国内战争”，将国际冲突转化为推翻资产阶级统治的国内革命。

(3) The Proletarian Political Stance Implicit in the Critique of Imperialist Thought

（三）帝国主义思潮批判中蕴含的无产阶级政治立场

The political stance of the proletariat is established through struggle against various erroneous currents of thought. Lenin profoundly pointed out that “without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” and that “a party can fulfill its role as a vanguard fighter only if it is guided by an advanced theory.” Only through theoretical critique of erroneous currents of thought, exposing their reactionary essence of covering up contradictions and reconciling class antagonisms, can the proletarian party truly take a firm stance and achieve ideological unity and consolidation within the revolutionary ranks. The different theoretical positions surrounding the issue of imperialism not only reflect differences in understanding among various factions but also reveal the class positions and political orientations they represent. It was precisely through a critical examination of a series of representative currents of thought that Lenin settled accounts with those theoretical tendencies that dissolved proletarian revolutionary consciousness, thereby establishing the theory of imperialism on a scientific and revolutionary foundation.

无产阶级的政治立场是在同各种错误思潮的斗争中确立起来的。列宁深刻指出，“没有革命的理论，就不会有革命的运动”，“只有以先进理论为指南的党，才能实现先进战士的作用”。只有通过对错误思潮的理论批判，揭露其掩盖矛盾、调和阶级对立的反动实质，无产阶级政党才能真正站稳立场，使革命队伍在思想上获得统一和巩固。围绕帝国主义问题所形成的不同理论主张，不仅反映了不同派别在认识上的分歧，更折射出他们所代表的阶级立场与政治取向。列宁正是在对一系列代表性思潮的批判性审视中，清算了那些消解无产阶级革命意识的理论倾向，从而将帝国主义理论建立在科学的、革命的地基之上。

First, Lenin criticized Hobson’s petty-bourgeois stance. The British radical democrat John A. Hobson linked imperialism to inequality in income and wealth distribution and attributed the new imperialist foreign policy to the impulse of capital seeking overseas investment. He argued that a progressive society should not rely on militarism and aggressive diplomacy to find markets for commodities and surplus capital but should instead be based on substantive equality in economic and educational opportunities, raising the level of social consumption to match the development of productive forces, thereby fully absorbing all types of capital and labor resources. In this way, problems of overproduction, idle capital, and unemployment could be avoided, eliminating the internal impetus for great powers to compete for overseas markets. Regarding Hobson’s moral critique of imperialism, Lenin commented that even though Hobson might harbor great goodwill, as long as he failed to reveal the symbiotic relationship between imperialism and monopoly, “such criticism always remains a ‘naive wish’.” [2]2 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 102.

首先，列宁批判了霍布森的小资产阶级立场。英国激进民主主义者约翰·A.霍布森（JohnA.Hobson）将帝国主义与收入和财富分配不均联系在一起，并将新的帝国主义外交政策归因于向海外投资资本的冲动。他指出，一个进步性的社会不应依赖于军国主义和强硬外交来为商品和剩余资本寻找市场，而是应该以经济和教育机会的实质平等为基础，通过提升社会消费水平使之与生产力发展相适应，充分吸纳各类资本与劳动力资源。如此便可避免生产过剩、资本闲置与劳动力失业问题，进而消除列强争夺海外市场的内在动因。针对霍布森从道德层面对帝国主义提出的批评，列宁评价道，尽管霍布森可能抱有极大的善意，但只要他未能揭示帝国主义与垄断之间的共生关系，“那么这种批评就始终是一种‘天真的愿望’”。

Second, Lenin criticized the opportunist conciliationism represented by Hilferding. Lenin gave extremely high praise to Hilferding’s Finance Capital but also criticized the latter’s opportunist and conciliationist tendencies. Hilferding claimed that imperialism was a policy that capitalists were compelled to pursue under the rule of finance capital and argued that “finance capital is capital controlled by banks and employed by industrialists.” Lenin pointed out that although Hilferding’s definition reflected some characteristics of finance capital, “this definition is incomplete insofar as it fails to indicate one of the most important factors, namely, that the concentration of production and capital has developed to a level that leads, and has already led, to monopoly.” [3]3 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 108. Thus, the monopolistic essence of finance capital as “the merger or growing together of banks and industry” and its “dominance over all other forms of capital” [4]4 Rudolf Hilferding, *Finance Capital*. was obscured, thereby concealing the true nature of imperialism as monopolistic, parasitic, decaying, and moribund. It is precisely for this reason that Hilferding’s theory harbors “a certain tendency to reconcile Marxism with opportunism.” [5]5 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 108.

其次，列宁批判了以希法亭为代表的机会主义调和论调。列宁对希法亭的《金融资本》给予了极高的评价，但也对后者存在的机会主义和调和主义论调进行了批判。希法亭声称帝国主义是在金融资本统治下资本家不得不推行的一项政策，并认为“金融资本就是由银行支配而由工业家运用的资本”。列宁指出，希法亭的定义虽然反映了金融资本的某些特点，但“这个定义不完全的地方，就在于它没有指出最重要的因素之一，即生产和资本的集中发展到了会导致而且已经导致垄断的高度”。如此一来，金融资本由“银行和工业日益融合或者说长合在一起”的垄断本质及其“对其他一切形式的资本的优势”就被遮蔽了，进而也掩盖了帝国主义的垄断、寄生、腐朽和垂死等真实性质。正因为如此，希法亭的理论存在着“某种把马克思主义同机会主义调和起来的倾向”。

Finally, Lenin also criticized the “social chauvinism” represented by Kautsky. Kautsky argued: “Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. Imperialism is the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to conquer and annex ever larger agricultural regions, regardless of which nations inhabit them.” Lenin critically pointed out that the characteristic of imperialism is by no means merely the annexation of agricultural regions by industrial capital; its essence lies in the fact that finance capital has achieved comprehensive control over industry, commerce, and even all spheres of society. Fundamentally, Kautsky attempted to distinguish between finance capital as a cause and imperialist policy as an effect, arguing that imperialism is only “a policy ‘preferred’ by finance capital,” [6]6 V. I. Lenin, *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*, in *Collected Works*, vol. 27, p. 111. thereby fantasizing a “ultra-imperialist” stage in which competition could be replaced by agreements, and believing that “the path of peaceful, legal power within the framework of democratic representative government is both possible and desirable.” [7]7 Karl Kautsky, *Imperialism and the War*. This “is nothing but an attempt to cover up the deepest contradictions of imperialism, thereby providing a theoretical defense for ‘unity’ with the apologists of imperialism, i.e., outright social chauvinists and opportunists,” and in fact slides into the rut of opportunism and reformism.

最后，列宁还对以考茨基为代表的“社会沙文主义”进行了批判。考茨基认为：“帝国主义是高度发展的工业资本主义的产物。帝国主义就是每个工业资本主义民族力图征服和吞并愈来愈多的农业区域，而不管那里居住的是什么民族。”列宁批判性地指出，帝国主义的特征绝不仅仅是工业资本对农业区域的吞并，其本质在于金融资本已经实现了对工业、商业乃至社会一切领域的全面控制。根本上看，考茨基试图将作为原因的金融资本和作为结果的帝国主义政策相区分，认为帝国主义只是“金融资本‘比较爱好的’一种政策”，从而幻想出一个可以通过协议取代竞争的“超帝国主义”阶段，认为“在民主代议制的框架内和平合法的权力之路是可能的，也是可取的”，这“无非是要掩饰帝国主义的最深刻的矛盾，从而为同帝国主义辩护士即露骨的社会沙文主义者和机会主义者讲‘统一’的理论辩护”，实际上是滑入了机会主义和改良主义的窠臼。

II. Contemporary Western Scholars’ Challenges to Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

二、当代西方学者对列宁帝国主义理论的诘难

Imperialism and its related theories have been among the core issues of concern to Marxist thinkers over the past 100 years and more. The profound transformation of the world political and economic structure, especially the rise of the United States as the core political force of the Western capitalist camp after the Second World War, greatly stimulated the research enthusiasm of Western academia for the theory of imperialism, particularly its political dimension. Some Western scholars, taking certain new features presented by imperialism after the Second World War as evidence, accuse Lenin’s theory of imperialism of tendencies such as state instrumentalism and economic reductionism, arguing that it cannot fully explain the operational logic of contemporary imperialism, and attempt to construct new theoretical analytical paradigms.

帝国主义及其相关理论是过去100多年来马克思主义思想家关注的核心问题之一。世界政治经济格局的深刻变革，特别是第二次世界大战后美国作为西方资本主义阵营核心政治力量的崛起，极大激发了西方学术界对帝国主义理论，尤其是其政治维度的研究热情。一些西方学者以第二次世界大战后帝国主义所呈现出来的一些新特征为论据，指责列宁的帝国主义理论存在着国家工具主义与经济还原主义等倾向，认为其无法全面阐释当代帝国主义的运行逻辑，并试图建构新的理论分析范式。

(I) Accusing Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism of Having a Tendency toward State Instrumentalism

（一）指责列宁帝国主义论存在国家工具主义倾向

Scholars represented by Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin believe that the view of the state presented in the works of classical Marxist writers exhibits a tendency toward simplification and even instrumentalism. In their view, this theoretical tradition fails to fully appreciate the core function of the state in the political regulatory mechanisms of imperialism, often reducing imperialism simply to the result of economic forces. This over-reliance on economic analysis causes the concepts of “capitalism” and “imperialism,” which should be analytically distinct, to be blurred or even equated.

以里奥·帕尼奇（LeoPanitch）与萨姆·金丁（SamGindin）为代表的学者认为，马克思主义经典作家的著作中所呈现的国家观存在简单化乃至工具主义倾向。在他们看来，该理论传统未能充分重视帝国主义政治调节机制中国家的核心功能，往往将帝国主义单纯归结为经济力量驱动的结果。而过度倚重经济分析，致使“资本主义”与“帝国主义”这两个在分析上本应有所区别的概念被模糊甚至等同起来。

Panitch and Gindin argue that Lenin’s theory of imperialism does not give sufficient attention to the relative autonomy of the state. In their view, Lenin’s analytical framework effectively simplifies the state into a direct “agent” or “executive committee” of monopoly capital, which is an overly crude “instrumentalist” mode of interpretation. In contrast, they emphasize that the modern capitalist state is not merely a passive tool manipulated at will by the capitalist class, but a complex entity with its own institutional architecture, bureaucratic rationality, and professional administrative system, undertaking the comprehensive function of maintaining the overall social order and the integrity of the social sphere. Taking the United States as an example, they point out that its state managers, such as officials from the State Department and the Treasury Department, acted in constructing the post-war global order based on a set of strategic considerations and institutional knowledge aimed at ensuring the long-term stability of the entire capitalist system—a logic of action that exceeds the direct directives serving the interests of a particular monopoly group. Therefore, they emphasize that the key to understanding imperialism lies in recognizing that “capitalist imperialism needs to be understood through an extension of the theory of the capitalist state, rather than being deduced directly from theories of economic stages or crises.” Based on this state-centric theoretical position, Panitch and Gindin question the explanatory power of Lenin’s theory, namely, that it cannot adequately explain the “informal empire” led by the United States after the Second World War. This new form of imperial rule primarily relies on the hegemony of the US dollar, the loan conditions of international financial institutions, systems of military alliances, the power to set international rules, and the export of ideological discourse, to maintain the stability and effectiveness of its rule. All of this precisely reflects the highly constructive and proactive political functions performed by the US state apparatus, which go far beyond the scope of classical “instrumentalist” explanations. Consequently, Panitch and Gindin argue that the left urgently needs a new theory of imperialism to explain “how the US state developed the capacity to eventually bring capitalist competitors under its wing and to supervise and maintain ‘globalization’—that is, the spread of capitalist social relations to every corner of the world.” Compared with views that attempt to downplay the role of the state in analyses of capitalist globalization, they emphatically point out that the functions performed by the bourgeois state in safeguarding property rights, regulating contracts, stabilizing currency, maintaining the reproduction of class relations, and suppressing crises have always been core elements of the operational mechanism of capitalism. Therefore, they argue that the state should be regarded as the core element in explaining the process of capitalist globalization.

帕尼奇和金丁认为，列宁的帝国主义理论未对国家的相对自主性予以充分重视。在他们看来，列宁的分析框架实际把国家简化成垄断资本的直接“代理人”或者“执行委员会”，这是过于粗糙的“工具主义”解读方式。与之相反，他们强调，现代资本主义国家并非只是资本家阶层任意摆布的被动工具，而是有着自身制度架构、官僚理性以及专业行政体系的复合体，承担着维持整个社会秩序和社会领域完整的综合职能。他们以美国为例指出，其国家管理者如国务院官员、财政部官员等在构建战后全球秩序时，是凭借一套旨在保证整个资本主义系统长久稳定的战略考量以及制度知识而行动，此种行为逻辑超出了一般的、为某个垄断集团利益服务的直接指令。因此，他们强调，认识帝国主义的关键在于承认“资本主义帝国主义需要通过延伸资本主义国家理论来理解，而不是直接从经济阶段或危机理论中推导出来”。基于这样的国家中心理论立场，帕尼奇和金丁对列宁理论的解释力提出了质疑，即该理论无法充分解释第二次世界大战以后由美国主导的“非正式帝国”。这种新型帝国统治形式主要依托美元霸权、国际金融机构的贷款约束、军事同盟体系、国际规则制定权以及意识形态话语输出，来维系其统治的稳定性与有效性。而这一切恰恰体现出美国国家机器所发挥的、远超经典“工具主义”解释范畴的高度建构性与主动性政治功能。由此，帕尼奇和金丁认为，左翼迫切需要一种新的帝国主义理论来解释“美国政府如何发展出最终能够将资本主义竞争对手纳入麾下，并监督和维护‘全球化’——即资本主义社会关系向世界各个角落的传播——的能力”。相较于那些在资本主义全球化分析中试图淡化国家角色的观点，他们着重指出，资产阶级国家在保障产权、监管契约、稳定货币、维系阶级关系再生产以及抑制危机等方面所发挥的职能，始终是资本主义运行机制的核心要素。因此，他们认为应把国家视为解释资本主义全球化进程的核心要素。

Other scholars have echoed this critical viewpoint from different angles. John Willoughby proposed that unless sufficient connections and arguments can be established between changes in the state and social formations and the process of global capital accumulation, one cannot “deduce imperial rule from the logic of capital export or the uneven development of capitalist competition.” Vivek Chibber stated that classical Marxist literature in analyzing imperialism often neglects “the political mediation of the deep economic forces presumed to drive the imperialist project,” and further proposed that the classical writers “did not treat the state as an independent factor in explaining imperialism, primarily because they used an overly simplified concept of the state–capital relationship.” This type of criticism holds that Lenin’s theory of imperialism is relatively weak in its analysis of the political systems among nation-states, underestimates the independent shaping effect of the anarchic nature of the international system on state behavior, and fails to accurately capture the new forms of contemporary inter-state competition shifting toward complex fields such as technology, finance, and rule-making power.

其他学者也从不同角度呼应了这一批评观点。约翰·威洛比（JohnWilloughby）提出，除非能在国家和社会形态的变化与世界资本积累过程之间建立充分的联系与论证，否则便不能“从资本输出或资本主义竞争的不均衡发展逻辑中推断出帝国统治”。维韦克·奇伯（VivekChibber）表示，马克思主义的经典文献在分析帝国主义时经常忽略了“被视为推动帝国主义事业的深层经济力量的政治调节”，他进一步提出，经典作家“在解释帝国主义时并未将国家视为独立因素，这主要是因为他们使用了过于简化的国家—资本关系概念”。这类批评认为，列宁的帝国主义理论对民族国家之间政治体系的解析较为薄弱，轻视了国际体系的无政府状态对国家行为的独立塑造作用，也未能准确捕捉到当代国家间竞争朝技术、金融、规则制定权等复杂领域转变的新形式。

In summary, they believe that understanding the essence of imperialism requires the guidance of political theory, and especially must be grounded in a solid theory of the capitalist state. These scholars advocate systematically incorporating state theory into the analysis of imperialism to construct a more complete contemporary theoretical system of imperialism. In their review of David Harvey’s *The New Imperialism*, Sam Ashman and Alex Callinicos also argue that Marxists often fall into another error, namely, “obliterating geopolitics by insisting on finding an economic root for all state policies and actions.” They argue that a complete theory of imperialism should be able to explain how capitalists and state managers jointly exert their agency.

总而言之，他们认为，理解帝国主义的本质需要政治理论的指导，尤其必须立足于扎实的资本主义国家理论。这些学者主张将国家理论系统地纳入帝国主义分析，以构建更为完善的当代帝国主义理论体系。山姆·阿什曼（SamAshman）与亚历克斯·卡利尼科斯（AlexCallinicos）在评述大卫·哈维《新帝国主义》的文章中也认为，马克思主义者常陷入另一误区，即“通过坚持为所有国家政策与行动寻找经济根源来抹杀地缘政治”。他们认为，一个完整的帝国主义理论应当能够解释资本家与国家管理者如何共同发挥其能动作用。

(II) Accusing Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism of Having a Tendency toward Economic Reductionism

（二）指责列宁帝国主义论存在经济还原主义倾向

Scholars represented by Hans J. Morgenthau argue that Lenin’s theory of imperialism lacks sufficient development in its political dimension. Murray Noonan proposes that “the analysis of imperialism by the pioneers suffers from a serious problem: the conspicuous absence of political theory from their writings, especially in the works of classical Marxists.” In Noonan’s view, the theories of imperialism put forward by revolutionary theorists represented by Bukharin and Lenin appear relatively one-sided due to their excessive reliance on economic analysis. This criticism holds that Lenin’s exposition is overly focused on the economic aspects of imperialism, and relies heavily on the analytical frameworks of Hobson and Hilferding, thus failing to fully grasp the essence of imperialism. Historians such as D.K. Fieldhouse, John Gallagher, and Ronald Robinson also believe that Hobson and Lenin established a flawed model of imperialism, often labeled as “economic imperialism,” implying that their explanatory framework overemphasized economic motives. L.G. Churchward, on the other hand, argues that Lenin did not provide a systematic explanation of international relations in his theory of imperialism, nor did he fully consider the role of power politics and other political factors.

以汉斯·摩根索（HansJ.Morgenthau）为代表的学者提出，列宁的帝国主义理论在政治维度上缺乏充分展开。默里·努南（MurrayNoonan）提出“先驱者对帝国主义的分析存在一个严重问题，这就是他们著述中明显缺少政治理论，在古典马克思主义者的著作中尤其如此”。在努南看来，以布哈林和列宁为代表的革命理论家所提出的帝国主义理论，因过度倚重经济分析而显得较为片面。这种批评认为，列宁的论述过于侧重帝国主义的经济方面，而且很大程度上依托于霍布森和希法亭的分析框架，因而没有全面把握帝国主义的本质。历史学家比如D.K.菲尔德豪斯（D.K.Fieldhouse）、约翰·加拉格尔（JohnGallagher）与罗纳德·罗宾逊（RonaldRobinson）等人也认为霍布森和列宁建立了一个有缺陷的帝国主义模型，这个模型经常被贴上“经济帝国主义”的标签，暗示他们的解释框架过分强调了经济动因。L.G.丘奇沃德（L.G.Churchward）则认为，列宁在其帝国主义理论中并未提供关于国际关系的系统解释，也没有充分考虑强权政治及其他政治因素的作用。

As the founder of realist international relations theory, Morgenthau offered the most thorough critique of the Hobson-Lenin theory. He believed that Marxist theories of imperialism were built on the conviction that “all political phenomena are a reflection of economic forces,” and therefore the political manifestations of imperialism were directly reduced to a subsidiary product of the capitalist economic system. In contrast to this line of thinking, Morgenthau pointed out that the fundamental driving force of imperialism comes from the state’s unlimited pursuit of power, an eternal logic rooted in the anarchic nature of the international system. By enumerating a large number of war cases from “the entire period after the maturity of capitalism,” he sought to prove that imperialist wars are mostly or entirely political in purpose, and that economic interests are merely incidental benefits brought by political objectives, never constituting the primary motive for statesmen’s decisions on war and peace. On this basis, Morgenthau concluded that the “economic theory of imperialism” does not conform to the facts of historical experience.

作为现实主义国际关系理论的奠基人，摩根索对霍布森—列宁理论进行了最为彻底的批评。他认为，马克思主义的帝国主义理论建立在“一切政治现象都是经济力量的反映”的信念之上，因此帝国主义的政治表现就被直接归结为资本主义经济体系的附庸产物。与这一思路不同，摩根索指出，帝国主义的根本动力来自国家对于权力的无限追求，这是植根于国际体系无政府状态的永恒逻辑。他通过罗列大量处于“资本主义成熟后的整个时期”的战争案例，以期证明帝国主义战争大多或者完全出于政治目的，而经济利益不过是政治目的带来的附带品，绝不能成为政治家们决定战争与和平的主要动机。在此基础上，摩根索得出了“帝国主义的经济理论”不符合历史经验事实的结论。

Methodologically, critics further charge that Lenin’s theory falls into the trap of “economic reductionism” or “economic determinism,” simply reducing the political behavior of imperialism to a direct expression of economic laws, while ignoring the complex interactive relationship between economics and politics, as well as the relative independence of the power structure within nation-states. Correspondingly, some scholars advocate constructing theories of imperialism based on political analysis. For example, Joseph Schumpeter rejected the “historical economic explanation” that derives imperialist tendencies from “the influence of economic structures shaping general life and relations of production,” and instead argued that understanding imperialism should focus on “the real and concrete interests of the people,” emphasizing that these interests are not necessarily economic in nature. He then explained imperialism as the socio-psychological remnant of the belligerent instincts of pre-capitalist “warrior aristocracies,” treating it as an irrational, atavistic phenomenon contrary to the rational spirit of capitalism, thereby attempting to fundamentally sever the necessary connection between imperialism and the capitalist economic structure. Similarly, in the structural realist perspective of Kenneth N. Waltz, the error of the Hobson-Lenin theory of imperialism lies in its methodological reductionism. He argues that attempting to explain system-level outcomes by unit-level attributes—for example, using the internal economic structure of a state to account for international conflict—cannot explain why states with the same economic structure exhibit different external behaviors, nor why states with different economic structures show similar expansionist conduct.

在方法论上，批评者进一步指控列宁的理论陷入“经济还原主义”或者“经济决定论”的陷阱，把帝国主义的政治行为简单地归结为经济规律的直接体现，忽视了经济与政治之间复杂的互动关系，以及民族国家内部权力结构的相对独立性。与之相对应的是，一些学者提倡构建以政治分析为基础的帝国主义理论。例如，约瑟夫·熊彼特（JosephSchumpeter）拒绝从“塑造一般生活与生产关系的经济结构影响”中推导出帝国主义倾向的“历史的经济解释”，而认为理解帝国主义应该关注“人民的真实和具体利益”，并且强调这些利益不一定是经济性质的。进而，他把帝国主义解释成前资本主义时代的“战争贵族”好战本能的社会心理残余，把它看作一种非理性的、与资本主义理性精神相悖的返祖现象，从而试图在根本上切断帝国主义与资本主义经济结构之间的必然联系。又如，在肯尼斯·华尔兹（KennethN.Waltz）的结构现实主义视野里，霍布森—列宁的帝国主义理论失误源于其方法论上的还原主义。他认为，试图用单元层次的属性去解释体系层次的结果，比如用国家内部的经济结构来说明国际冲突，无法解释为何具有相同经济结构的国家对外行为存在差别，也难以说明为何具有不同经济结构的国家会表现出相似的扩张行为。

From the above review it can be seen that the severe criticisms of Lenin’s theory of imperialism by Western scholars all proceed from the methodological level. Although in their analyses they vehemently denounce “economic determinism” in an attempt to highlight the importance of political factors, they in fact fall into the error of mechanically separating politics from economics, which precisely exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of their dialectical unity. In reality, Marx and Engels often used the term “condition” (制约) rather than an absolutist word like “determine” to demonstrate the dialectical unity between productive forces and relations of production, and between economic base and superstructure. Grounded in this scientific methodological foundation, we urgently need, in the counter-critique of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, to reaffirm its contemporary value and highlight its profound methodological significance.

通过以上梳理可以看出，西方学者对列宁帝国主义理论的严苛批判，无不是从方法论层面切入而展开的。尽管他们在分析中极力斥责“经济决定论”，试图以此凸显政治因素的重要性，但实则陷入了将政治与经济机械割裂的误区，这恰恰暴露了其对二者辩证统一关系的根本性误解。事实上，马克思恩格斯经常用“制约”而非“决定”这样的绝对性词汇，来论证生产力和生产关系、经济基础和上层建筑之间的辩证统一关系。基于这一科学的方法论根基，我们亟须在对列宁帝国主义理论的反批判中，重申该理论的当代价值，彰显其深刻的方法论意义。

III. Critical Response and Methodological Reaffirmation: The Contemporary Activation of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

三、批评性回应与方法论重申：列宁帝国主义理论的当代激活

The Western scholarly assault on Lenin’s theory of imperialism is essentially a multi-dimensional theoretical confrontation centered on historical outlook, methodology, and analytical focus. The core of the debate is: should a scientific theory of imperialism place greater emphasis on the objective coercive force of the capitalist economic structure, or should it focus on the agency and relative autonomy of the state, political actors, and even cultural subjects? In explaining international political-economic phenomena, should we proceed from the fundamental contradictions of the mode of production, or should we give priority to the political logic of the state system, or seek a compromise between the two? Does Lenin’s theory of imperialism represent a historical generalization of the early special form of monopoly capitalism, or does it reveal an inherent, essential, and constant connection between capitalism and imperialism? Is the primary driving force of imperialism the economic logic of capital accumulation, the political logic of power struggle, or a complex coupling of multiple logics? Some Western scholars have labeled classical theories of imperialism as “state instrumentalism” or “economic reductionism” and attempted to construct new explanatory frameworks for imperialism. Yet these very criticisms stem from a misunderstanding or even a departure from the methodology of historical materialism. Returning to Lenin’s methodological foundation is not only an effective response to various criticisms but also an inevitable requirement for rebuilding a scientific paradigm for the analysis of imperialism.

西方学者对列宁帝国主义理论的诘难，实质上是一场围绕历史观、方法论与分析重心的多维度理论交锋。争论的核心在于：科学的帝国主义理论应更加强调资本主义经济结构的客观强制力，还是应该侧重国家、政治行为体乃至文化主体的能动性与相对独立性？解释国际政治经济现象，究竟应从生产方式的根本矛盾出发，抑或优先考虑国家体系的政治逻辑，还是谋求二者之间的折中调和？列宁的帝国主义理论究竟是对垄断资本主义早期特殊形态的历史概括，还是揭示了资本主义与帝国主义之间内在的、本质的恒常联系？帝国主义的首要驱动力，是资本积累的经济逻辑、权力争夺的政治逻辑，还是多种逻辑的复杂耦合？一些西方学者将经典帝国主义理论打上“国家工具主义”或“经济还原主义”的标签，并试图构建新的帝国主义解释框架，然而这些质疑本身恰恰源于对历史唯物主义方法论的误解甚至背离。重返列宁的方法论基础，不仅是对各种批评的有效回应，更是重建帝国主义分析之科学范式的必然要求。

(I) Responses to Criticisms of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

（一）对列宁帝国主义理论质疑的回应

Since its birth, Lenin’s theory of imperialism has encountered various criticisms and distortions. The root cause of these problems often lies in the neglect and misreading of the methodology and analytical methods on which the theory relies. In the face of new changes and new forms of contemporary capitalism, we must maintain theoretical resolve, criticize those erroneous theoretical tendencies that are forming “a fairly coherent system of views,” and at the same time demonstrate the theory’s openness and explanatory power in dialogue with reality. The criticisms and challenges to Lenin’s theory, far from shaking its scientific foundation, precisely become opportunities for theoretical innovation.

列宁的帝国主义理论自诞生以来便遭遇各类质疑与曲解，而这些问题产生的根源，往往在于对该理论所依托的方法论与分析方法的忽视与误读。面对当代资本主义的新变化、新形态，我们既要保持理论定力，对那些正在形成“相当严整的观点体系”的错误理论倾向予以批判，也要在与现实对话的过程中彰显理论的开放性与解释力。对列宁理论的质疑和挑战，非但不能动摇其科学根基，反而恰恰成为理论创新的契机。

First, the view that Lenin’s theory of imperialism exhibits a tendency toward state instrumentalism essentially fails to recognize the deep integration of the economic and political characteristics of imperialism at the institutional level. A scientific assessment of this charge must return to Lenin’s texts and the tradition of historical materialism in which they are situated. In reality, Lenin’s discussion of the role of the state in *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism* and related works is far more complex and dialectical than the critics have summarized. Lenin did not ignore the state; within the strict theoretical framework of historical materialism, he profoundly revealed a new fusion between the state and monopoly capital in the era of imperialism, explicitly pointing out that the salient feature of the imperialist era is the “increasingly close merger of the state with the most powerful capitalist alliances.” This “merger” is not a simple instrumental subordination but a profound structural symbiosis. That is, monopoly organizations increasingly rely on state power to compete for colonies and spheres of influence, implement protective tariff policies, and use state intervention to secure super-high monopoly profits. At the same time, the political decision-making process of modern capitalist states is increasingly influenced by financial oligarchies and monopoly groups (through personnel infiltration, interest transmission, and other means). Citing extensive empirical material on the interlocking directorships of banks, syndicates, and government officials, Lenin vividly depicted the historical fact that “private monopoly and state monopoly are intertwined.” These analytical processes are far from being encompassed by a crude “instrumentalism”; they accurately reveal the deep institutional integration of economic and political power, demonstrating that the state itself has become a key organizational form through which monopoly capital realizes its global logic of accumulation. Therefore, some scholars have argued that Lenin’s theory of imperialism “is considered to be one of the most influential views among Marxists and even some non-Marxists, because it provides critical insights for understanding relations and conflicts among states.”

其一，认为列宁帝国主义理论存在国家工具主义倾向的观点，本质上是没有认识到帝国主义的经济特征与政治特征在制度层面的深度融合。科学评判这种指控必须回到列宁的文本及其所处的历史唯物主义理论传统之中。实际上，列宁在《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》及有关著作中关于国家角色的论述，要比批评者所总结的复杂得多、辩证得多。列宁并没有忽视国家，他是在历史唯物主义严格的理论框架下，深刻揭示了帝国主义时代国家与垄断资本的新融合关系，明确指出帝国主义时代的显著特征就是“国家同势力极大的资本家同盟日益密切地融合在一起”。这个“融合”，并非简单的工具性从属关系，而是深刻的结构性共生关系，即垄断组织越来越依靠国家政权来争夺殖民地和势力范围，实行保护关税政策，利用国家干预保证高额垄断利润；同时，现代资本主义国家的政治决策过程，也越来越受金融寡头和垄断集团的影响（通过人事渗透、利益输送等方式）。列宁引用大量银行、辛迪加与政府官员交叉任职的经验材料，活灵活现地表现出“私人垄断组织和国家垄断组织是交织在一起的”历史事实。这些分析过程绝不是粗浅的“工具主义”所能容纳的，它准确揭示了经济权力与政治权力在制度层面的深度融合，表明国家本身已经成为垄断资本实现其全球积累逻辑的关键组织形式。因此，有学者提出，列宁的帝国主义理论“被认为是对马克思主义者甚至对一些非马克思主义者最有影响力的观点之一，因为它为理解国家之间的关系和冲突提供了关键的见解”。

Second, the view that Lenin’s theory of imperialism has a tendency toward economic reductionism essentially fails to fully and completely grasp the complex connection among the political agency of the state, imperialist war, and the proletarian revolution. In reality, Lenin’s analysis of the social structure and world order in the imperialist stage conforms to the basic logic of historical materialism. A revolutionary change in the economic base inevitably triggers a fundamental restructuring in the sphere of the superstructure, while political and military activities both serve specific economic interests and reshape the economic landscape through their powerful counteractive force – this is precisely a dialectical, total social analysis, fundamentally different from linear, mechanical economic determinism. For example, Lenin’s theory of imperialism aimed to scientifically reveal the roots of the First World War; he systematically argued how the absolute law of uneven political and economic development of capitalism inevitably leads to imperialist war among the great powers for the redivision of the world. Here, monopoly domination, capital export, and the rule of financial oligarchy at the economic level are the deep-seated driving forces behind the war, while the war itself is the political form of expression necessarily taken when these economic contradictions intensify. Another example: in articles such as *Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin*, Lenin severely condemned the erroneous tendency of “economism” that denied the significance of political struggle, stating that “a class cannot maintain its rule, and consequently cannot fulfill its production tasks, unless it correctly approaches problems from the political angle.” [9]9 V. I. Lenin, *Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin* (1921). This indicates that while Lenin affirmed the determining role of the economic base, he also greatly valued the relative independence of the political superstructure and its active role in the historical process.

其二，认为列宁帝国主义论存在经济还原主义倾向的观点，本质上是未能对国家政治能动性、帝国主义战争与无产阶级革命之间的复杂联系作出全面完整的把握。实际上，列宁关于帝国主义阶段的社会结构与世界秩序的分析符合历史唯物主义的基本逻辑。经济基础发生革命性变革必然引发上层建筑领域出现根本性重构，而政治军事活动既服务于特定经济利益，又凭借强大反作用力重塑经济格局，这正是辩证的、总体性的社会分析，同线性、机械的经济决定论有本质不同。例如，列宁提出的帝国主义理论旨在从科学上揭示第一次世界大战的根源，他系统论证了资本主义政治经济发展不平衡的绝对规律如何必然引发列强间重新瓜分世界的帝国主义战争。在此，经济层面的垄断统治、资本输出与金融寡头统治是战争背后的深层次动力，而战争则是这些经济矛盾激化时必然采取的政治表达形式。又如，列宁在《再论工会、目前局势及托洛茨基同志和布哈林同志的错误》等文章里严厉斥责那种否定政治斗争意义的“经济主义”错误倾向，提出“一个阶级如果不从政治上正确地看问题，就不能维持它的统治，因而也就不能完成它的生产任务”。这表明列宁在肯定经济基础起决定性作用的同时，也十分看重政治上层建筑的相对独立性及其在历史进程中的能动作用。

Third, the view that overestimates the key political role played by the capitalist superstructure in forming the “informal empire” essentially ignores the dynamic connection between changes in the political function of the state and the evolution of the capital accumulation mechanism. Adhering to the primacy of the economic base is the fundamental stance of Marxists; applying historical materialism to analyze contemporary imperialism should start from the primacy of the economy. Emphasizing the primacy of the economy does not mean negating the important role of the state. Unlike the “classical imperialism” that Lenin analyzed, which at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century was mainly characterized by direct colonial partition, after the end of the Second World War, the United States, by establishing the Bretton Woods system, the NATO military alliance, and controlling the global cultural industry, constructed a global hegemonic system that was more covert and relied heavily on the political coordination of the state. It must be recognized that although this new form of imperial rule differs superficially from classical territorial annexation, its economic base remains monopoly capital, especially the inherent demand of highly financialized capital for accumulation and expansion on a global scale. Therefore, when placing the state at the core of the analysis of contemporary imperialism, it is also necessary to deeply investigate which logic and structure of capital accumulation the state’s actions actually serve. As Lenin pointed out, the reason Marx could analyze the development trends and laws of socio-economic formations as a “natural historical process” was that he “singled out the economic sphere from the various spheres of social life, and singled out production relations from all social relations as the basic, primary relations that determine all other relations.” [10]10 V. I. Lenin, *What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats* (1894). [11]11 The original text of the citation in the paragraph is from the Chinese translation of Lenin’s works, corresponding to the passage emphasizing that production relations are “the basic, primary relations that determine all other relations.” If one, divorced from the fundamental driving force of global capital accumulation, unilaterally emphasizes the “autonomy” and “agency” of the state management apparatus, one will fall into a political voluntarist understanding of the essence of imperialism, thereby ignoring its deep-rooted class nature and economic origin within the capitalist mode of production.

其三，过度拔高资本主义上层建筑在形成“非正式帝国”过程中所发挥的关键政治作用的观点，本质上是忽视了国家政治功能变迁与资本积累机制演变之间的动态关联。坚持经济基础的优先地位是马克思主义者的基本立场，运用历史唯物主义分析当代帝国主义就应当从经济的优先地位着手，而强调经济的优先地位并不等同于否定国家的重要作用。有别于列宁着重剖析的19世纪末20世纪初以直接殖民瓜分为主要特征的“古典帝国主义”，第二次世界大战结束后，美国通过建立布雷顿森林体系、北约军事同盟以及控制全球文化工业等方式，构建起的是一个更为隐蔽且倚重国家政治协调的全球霸权体系。需要看到，这种新型帝国统治形式，虽然在表面上不同于古典的领土兼并，但是它的经济基础仍然是垄断资本，尤其是高度金融化的资本在全球范围内进行积累和扩张的内在需求。所以在把国家放在当代帝国主义分析的核心位置的时候，也需要深入探究国家行为究竟服务于何种资本积累逻辑与结构。正如列宁所指出的，马克思之所以能以“自然历史过程”分析社会经济形态发展趋势与规律，就在于他“从社会生活的各种领域中划分出经济领域，从一切社会关系中划分出生产关系，即决定其余一切关系的基本的原始的关系”。如果脱离全球资本积累的根本动力，一味地强调国家管理机构的“自主”与“能动”，就会陷入对帝国主义本质的政治唯意志论的理解当中，从而忽略了它深深植根于资本主义生产方式的阶级属性和经济根源。

Overall, with his characteristically concise yet profound style of exposition, Lenin pointed directly to the essence of imperialism and its historical inevitability. This does not mean he ignored the complex role of factors such as politics, the state, and ideology in specific historical processes. To construct a theory of imperialism capable of explaining the current reality, it is undoubtedly necessary to explore more refined state theory and build a more complete geopolitical analytical framework based on the study and investigation of new phenomena. However, this theoretical development must be built upon the foundation of inheriting the core insights of classical theory – that is, adhering to the profound analysis of the economic roots of imperialism and the dominant role of monopoly capital, rather than simply negating them. In other words, the path for constructing a new theory of imperialism does not involve discarding the core categories Lenin proposed, such as monopoly, finance capital, and capital export. Instead, while adhering to the fundamental logic of capital accumulation revealed by these categories, it further investigates the specific unfolding and operational forms of this logic under contemporary backgrounds of financialization, globalization, informatization, and neoliberalism. It also explores the new forms in which superstructural factors – such as the state, transnational organizations, ideology, and geopolitics – integrate and interact with this logic. Only by adhering to a total perspective starting from the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production can one absorb contemporary intellectual resources while avoiding falling into methodological binary oppositions, thereby scientifically revealing the complex essence of contemporary capitalist global rule and its insurmountable internal contradictions.

总体而言，列宁以其特有的简练而深刻的论述方式，直指帝国主义的本质及其历史必然性，这并不是忽视了政治、国家、意识形态这些因素在具体历史进程中的复杂作用过程。要建构起一种可以解释当下现实情况的帝国主义理论，无疑需要在关注和研究新现象的基础上，挖掘更精细的国家理论和搭建更为完备的地缘政治分析框架。然而，这一理论发展必须建立在继承经典理论核心洞见的基础之上，即坚持对帝国主义经济根源与垄断资本主导作用的深刻剖析，而非简单予以否定。换言之，新的帝国主义理论的建构路径并非抛弃列宁提出的垄断、金融资本、资本输出等核心范畴，而是在坚守这些范畴所揭示的资本积累根本逻辑的前提下，进一步考察这一逻辑在当代金融化、全球化、信息化与新自由主义背景下的具体展开与运行形态，探究国家、跨国组织、意识形态与地缘政治等上层建筑因素以何种新形式与之融合并相互作用。唯有坚持从生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动出发的总体性视角，才能在吸收当代思想资源的同时避免陷入方法论上的二元对立，从而科学揭示当代资本主义全球统治的复杂本质及其无法克服的内在矛盾。

(II) Reaffirming the Methodological Significance of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism

（二）重申列宁帝国主义理论的方法论意义

The contemporary Western academic challenges to Lenin’s theory of imperialism, though superficially revolving around the relationship between the two categories of “state” and “economy,” actually touch upon fundamental divergences at the level of social science methodology. Defending and developing Lenin’s theory of imperialism concerns not only the accuracy of specific historical conclusions but, more crucially, the fundamental question of how to apply the scientific methodology of historical materialism to understand and grasp complex social reality. What Lenin’s theory of imperialism manifests is precisely the dialectical method of total analysis. It is neither a simple accumulation of empirical phenomena nor a one-sided pursuit of a single causal relationship, but rather is dedicated to revealing the deep structural contradictions within social formations and the inherent necessary tendencies of the movement of human history. For us, studying the problem of imperialism is essentially studying historical materialism – that is, investigating how human society achieves self-development through its own internal contradictory movement. The methodological value of this theory can be demonstrated from at least the following four interrelated dimensions.

当代西方学界对列宁帝国主义理论的质疑，表面上围绕“国家”与“经济”两大范畴的相互关系展开，实质上却触及了社会科学方法论层面的根本分歧。对列宁帝国主义理论的辩护与发展，不仅关乎具体历史结论的准确性，更核心的是关乎如何运用历史唯物主义这一科学方法论，去认识和把握复杂社会现实的根本性问题。列宁的帝国主义理论所彰显的，正是辩证的总体性分析方法。它既非对经验现象的简单堆砌，也非对单一因果关系的片面追逐，而是致力于揭示社会形态内部的深层矛盾结构，以及人类历史运动的内在必然趋势。对我们而言，研究帝国主义问题本质上就是研究历史唯物主义，即探究人类社会如何在自身内在的矛盾运动中实现自我发展。这一理论的方法论价值，至少可从以下四个相互关联的维度得以体现。

First, the concrete and contemporary application of the principles of historical materialism. Historical materialism, created by Marx and Engels, revealed the historical origins and evolutionary trends of socio-economic systems, laying a scientific foundation for understanding the laws of human historical development. Lenin creatively applied the basic principles of historical materialism to the new stage of capitalist development, precisely grasping the key change in the sphere of production – “concentration leads to monopoly” – and, using this as the logical starting point, systematically explained the drastic changes in the capitalist superstructure brought about by this change in the economic base. As Callinicos noted, the uniqueness of Lenin’s theory of imperialism lies in “placing modern imperialism in the context of the historical development of the capitalist mode of production.” [12]12 Alex Callinicos, *Imperialism and Global Political Economy* (2009). Lenin called imperialism the “highest stage” and “special stage” of capitalism, simultaneously adhering to the universality of the internal contradictions of capitalism and accurately grasping the particularity of the rule of finance-monopoly capital. Therefore, studying imperialism first requires grasping its economic essence; otherwise, the analysis of political and cultural phenomena loses its deepest anchoring point. This is precisely the foundation for resisting various forms of voluntarism, cultural determinism, or purely geopolitical analysis.

第一，历史唯物主义原则的具体化与时代化应用。马克思恩格斯创立的历史唯物主义揭示了社会经济制度的历史起源与演进趋势，为认识人类历史发展规律奠定了科学基础。列宁把历史唯物主义的基本原理创造性地应用于新的资本主义发展阶段，准确抓住生产领域“集中产生垄断”这一关键变化，并以此为逻辑起点系统阐释了这种经济基础的变化所带来的资本主义上层建筑的剧变。正如卡利尼克斯所提到的，列宁帝国主义理论的独特之处就在于，“将现代帝国主义置于资本主义生产方式历史发展的背景中”。列宁把帝国主义称为资本主义的“最高阶段”和“特殊阶段”，既坚持了资本主义的内在矛盾的普遍性，又准确把握了金融垄断资本统治的特殊性。因此，研究帝国主义首先要把握其经济实质，否则对政治、文化现象的分析就失去了最深层的锚定点。这正是抵御各种唯意志论、文化决定论或纯粹地缘政治分析的基础。

Second, the overall perspective of the critique of political economy. Some Western scholars accuse Lenin of falling into the error of “economic reductionism,” which is precisely a misunderstanding of the method of Marxist political economy. Engels pointed out that “the ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in the minds of men, in their increasing insight into eternal truth and justice, but in the changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of the epoch concerned.” Lenin’s theory of imperialism is permeated with a critique of the “totality” of the capitalist social formation. It does not treat politics as a passive reflection of economics, but rather, through the core category of “finance capital,” reveals the structural fusion of economic power and political power at the monopoly stage. In Lenin’s perspective, finance capital is not merely monetary capital, but a form of capital formed through the fusion of bank capital and industrial capital, possessing immense social power that necessarily merges with the state apparatus. That is to say, he is adept at examining, from the overall perspective of totality, how economic forces penetrate and reconstruct the political realm, and how political arrangements in turn react upon the accumulation process. This transcends the dualism that treats economics and politics as two separate spheres and then discusses their “interaction.” As Bob Sutcliffe pointed out, Lenin’s method of studying imperialism is best understood as an analytical process that “attempts to coherently integrate two independent aspects.”

第二，政治经济学批判的总体性视野。部分西方学者指责列宁走向“经济还原论”的误区，恰恰是对马克思主义政治经济学方法的误解。恩格斯指出，“一切社会变迁和政治变革的终极原因，不应当到人们的头脑中，到人们对永恒的真理和正义的日益增进的认识中去寻找，而应当到生产方式和交换方式的变更中去寻找；不应当到有关时代的哲学中去寻找，而应当到有关时代的经济中去寻找”。列宁的帝国主义理论贯穿着对资本主义社会形态的“总体性”批判，其并非把政治当作经济的被动反应，而是通过“金融资本”这个核心范畴，揭示了经济权力与政治权力在垄断阶段的结构性融合。在列宁的视域中，金融资本不是单纯的货币资本，而是银行资本与工业资本融合而成的、具有巨大社会权力并必然要同国家机器结合的资本形式。也就是说，他善于以总体性视野考察经济力量如何穿透并重构政治领域，以及政治安排又如何反作用于积累过程，这超越了将经济与政治视为两个独立领域然后探讨其“互动”的二元论。正如鲍勃·萨特克利夫（BobSutcliffe）所指出的，列宁的帝国主义研究方法最好被认为是一个“试图将两个独立方面连贯地整合在一起”的分析过程。

Third, the dialectical grasp of necessity and contingency, of structure and agency. Lenin’s theory of imperialism contains profound dialectical thinking. In fact, what Lenin demonstrated was the inevitability of imperialist war in the era of monopoly capitalism and its deep-seated economic roots. This by no means denies the various contingent factors in the historical process, such as the specific timing, location, and immediate trigger of a war, decisions made by individual politicians, and the details of diplomatic maneuvering. The methodological essence of Lenin’s theory of imperialism lies in grasping the decisive structural trends amidst complex and diverse contingent events, and in elucidating that contingency is a form of manifestation and a necessary complement to necessity. Similarly, while Lenin revealed that the structural power of monopoly capital sets the basic direction for the political behavior of nation-states, he also placed great importance on the revolutionary agency of the proletarian party. Based on a profound analysis of the contradictions of imperialism, he put forward the important strategic idea of “victory in one country”.[n] This fully demonstrates that the mission of scientific theory is to clarify objective structural conditions, while the key to revolutionary practice lies in seizing the space for agency opened up by specific historical conditions. To equate the objective necessity governed by economic laws within a specific social structure with mechanistic economic determinism or historical determinism that negates the agency of the subject is itself a vulgarized understanding of materialist dialectics.

第三，对必然性与偶然性、结构性与能动性的辩证把握。列宁的帝国主义理论中蕴含着深刻的辩证法思想。事实上，列宁所论证的是垄断资本主义时代帝国主义战争的必然性及其深层经济根源，这绝非否认历史进程中存在的各类偶然因素，如战争爆发的具体时间、地点与导火索，个别政治家的决策以及外交博弈的细节等。列宁帝国主义理论的方法论精髓，在于从纷繁复杂的偶然事件中把握具有决定性的结构性趋势，并阐明偶然性是必然性的表现形式与必要补充。同样，列宁在揭示垄断资本的结构性力量为民族国家的政治行为划定基本方向的同时，也高度重视无产阶级政党的革命能动性，并基于对帝国主义矛盾的深刻剖析，提出了“一国胜利”的重要战略思想。这充分表明，科学理论的使命在于阐明客观的结构性条件，而革命实践的关键则在于抓住具体历史条件所开辟的能动性空间。把特定社会结构中受经济规律支配的客观必然性，等同于否定主体能动性的机械经济决定论或历史决定论，本身就是对唯物辩证法的庸俗化理解。

Fourth, the scientific presentation combining the abstract and the concrete, essence and phenomenon. The construction of Lenin’s theory of imperialism strictly follows the scientific method of presentation that proceeds from the abstract to the concrete. Taking the category of “monopoly” as its logical starting point, it gradually unfolds into an in-depth analysis of more specific and complex theoretical categories—finance capital, capital export, international monopoly alliances, the great powers’ division of the world—and finally reproduces at the logical level the complete picture of imperialism as a world system full of internal contradictions and engaged in dynamic development. This process of theoretical construction essentially proceeds from revealing the inner essence of monopoly capitalism, gradually ascending to explaining concrete phenomena such as colonial policy, imperialist wars, and parasitism, thus realizing the dialectical unity of essence and phenomenon. Some Western scholars limit themselves to superficial descriptions of “chaotic appearances”[n] such as bureaucratic autonomous decision-making, ideological discourse, and international institutions, thereby questioning Lenin’s scientific grasp of the essence of imperialism. These discussions are divorced from a profound insight into the essence of things; their explanations of various phenomena remain at a fragmented and descriptive level, unable to reveal why these phenomena appear in such a specific and systematic form, still less to grasp the essence and the logic of necessity behind the phenomena.

第四，抽象与具体、本质与现象相结合的科学叙述。列宁帝国主义理论的体系建构严格遵循了从抽象上升到具体的科学叙述方法。他以“垄断”这一范畴为逻辑起点，逐步延伸展开对金融资本、资本输出、国际垄断同盟、列强瓜分世界等更为具体、复杂的理论范畴的深度剖析，最终在逻辑层面完整再现了帝国主义作为一个充满内在矛盾、处于动态发展中的世界体系的整体图景。这一理论建构过程，本质上是从揭示垄断资本主义的内在本质出发，逐步上升到阐释殖民政策、帝国主义战争、寄生性等具体现象的过程，实现了本质与现象的辩证统一。一些西方学者局限于对官僚自主决策、意识形态话语、国际制度等“混沌表象”的表面描述，以此质疑列宁对帝国主义本质的科学把握。这些论述脱离了对事物本质的深刻洞察，对各类现象的解释仅仅停留在零散化、描述性的层面，无法揭示这些现象为何会以特定的、系统的形态呈现，更难以把握现象背后的本质及必然性逻辑。

The most valuable methodological legacy of Lenin’s theory of imperialism lies in its demonstration of how to apply the dialectical method of totality of historical materialism to conduct a scientific and profound critical dissection of a historical era. It enlightens us that analyzing contemporary imperialism must start from the movement of the fundamental contradictions of global capital accumulation, examining the forms of combination and internal unity of economic power with political, military, and ideological power under new historical conditions. While acknowledging the relative autonomy of political, cultural, and other spheres, it is necessary to investigate how their effects are mediated and constrained by the structural needs of capital accumulation. While grasping the general trend of the logic of capital, it is necessary to concretely analyze its specific manifestations in particular countries, regions, and crisis situations. Once this method is abandoned, it is very easy to fall into two erroneous paths: either sliding into political idealism that reduces everything to power struggles among states, or indulging in fragmented phenomena such as financial derivatives, digital technology, and cultural discourse, thereby losing the critical power and insight to perceive the internal contradictions and historical trends of contemporary capitalism as an antagonistic global system. It can thus be seen that Lenin’s theory of imperialism is by no means outdated. The core of its dialectical, historical, and holistic critique of political economy remains an indispensable intellectual guide for constructing a scientific theory of contemporary imperialism. It remains a sharp ideological weapon for penetrating the “postmodern” fog and confronting the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

列宁帝国主义理论最宝贵的方法论遗产，在于它示范了如何运用历史唯物主义的辩证总体性方法，对一个历史时代进行科学而深刻的批判性解剖。它启示我们，分析当代帝国主义必须从全球资本积累的根本矛盾运动出发，考察经济权力与政治、军事、意识形态权力在新历史条件下的结合形式及其内在统一性；在承认政治、文化等领域相对自主性的前提下，探究其作用如何被资本积累的结构性需求所中介与约束；在把握资本逻辑普遍趋势的同时，具体分析其在特定国家、区域与危机形势中的特殊呈现。一旦抛弃这一方法，就极易陷入两种误区：要么滑向将一切归结为国家权力博弈的政治唯心论，要么沉迷于金融衍生品、数字技术、文化话语等碎片化现象，从而丧失对当代资本主义作为对抗性全球体系的内在矛盾与历史趋势的批判力与洞察力。由此可见，列宁的帝国主义理论非但没有过时，其蕴含的辩证的、历史的、总体性的政治经济学批判内核，依然是构建科学的当代帝国主义理论不可或缺的思想指南，仍是穿透“后现代”迷雾、直面资本主义内在矛盾的锐利思想武器。