1. The spiritual leader of a mosque; a prayer leader at a mosque.
2. A Shiite Muslim leader held by followers to be divinely appointed, sinless, and infallible, and to be a direct successor to Mohammed through the line of his son-in-law Ali.
3. Any of various rulers who claim descent from Mohammed and exercize spiritual and temporal leadership over a Muslim region or community.
See: INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
IMMIGRANTS — Into the United States
See also: ANTI-IMMIGRANT ATTITUDES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES—History Of
IMMISERATION OF THE PROLETARIAT
The increasing impoverishment of the working class and masses under capitalism. This is both a historical observation and a prediction for the future by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and also by Marx in Capital. Bourgeois ideologists have claimed that this has not actually happened, and that the working class has improved its lot substantially over the decades under capitalism. However there are several important respects in which Marx’s statement about the immiseration of the working class is clearly correct.
First, the statement was overall quite correct for the history of capitalism up to the time at which Marx was writing. The advent of capitalism and its early development certainly did lead to severe and often increasing impoverishment of the masses in Europe especially (which was the focus of Marx’s attention).
Second, while the working class has overall become better off in the leading imperialist countries during the capitalist imperialist era, this has come about mostly because of the capitalist desire to cool down the class struggle at home while they drastically intensify the exploitation of the people in the rest of the world. Thus on an overall international level the working people of the world have indeed been further impoverished under capitalism. More than half the population of the world at the present time lives in what can only be called serious poverty. (See: WORLD POVERTY.)
Third, even within the advanced capitalist and imperialist countries, there has been a relative impoverishment of the working class and masses. That is, there has been a massive polarization of wealth in the hands of bourgeoisie, while the economic welfare of the proletariat has improved at a much slower pace. In other words, almost all of the new wealth produced by the working class still goes to the capitalist class. Marx actually focused mostly on this relative immiseration of the working class, rather than on their absolute immiseration. This is something that the army of bourgeois critics of Marx almost totally ignore.
Fourth, while there have been periods of diminishing poverty in many countries, there have also been periods of increasing poverty in all countries. Moreover, the present period is one of those in which the immiseration of the workers and masses in most places in the world is definitely increasing as the world capitalist system sinks into its most severe economic crisis ever. The immiseration of the working class is definitely underway full speed again in almost all of the world today.
See also: NEOLIBERALISM
IMPATIENCE — Dangers Of
See also: PATIENCE
“Change is a matter of gradual development leading up to, and
preparing the ground for, sudden transition. Thus any intelligent effort to bring
about change must not only recognize that a sudden transition or revolution is
necessary at some point (though that is the first element of wisdom), but that
also the ground must be prepared for that revolution through a period of
gradual development. To rationally work to bring about a change is therefore
primarily to concern yourself with fostering the gradual development that must
inevitably occur before the necessary sudden leap is possible.
“Politically, there is the phenomenon of individuals who long for social revolution with all their heart and soul, but are too impatient to do the actual work necessary to prepare the ground for revolution. Because they are so impatient, they abandon the dialectical outlook on change, focus entirely on the need for a sudden transition, and down-play the effort needed to lay the necessary ground work.
“Such extreme impatience even leads people to revise their revolutionary theory to fit their subjective desires. ‘Winning the masses takes time, therefore maybe it is not necessary to win the masses, or maybe it is only necessary to win a small number of the masses...’ In such a way are the impatient pushed away from the masses, away from mass revolution, away from Marxism and toward “left” adventurism or even putschism.
“‘Organizing the masses takes time, therefore maybe it is not necessary to organize the masses, maybe we can just suppose that when push comes to shove the masses will spontaneously organize themselves for revolution...’ In such a way are the impatient pushed toward a form of anarchism and aloofness from the masses (even if they still recognize the importance of a vanguard party).
“‘Participating with the masses in their day-to-day struggle in order to raise their revolutionary consciousness is too big a job, therefore maybe it is not necessary, maybe it is really only a kind of reformism dressed up as revolutionary preparations; maybe the masses do not really need to learn through their own experiences, and maybe we do not need to be there with them to help them with this summation...’ In such a way does Marxism get turned into a sort of “leftist” preaching, or a form of evangelism.
“‘Preparing for revolution takes time and effort, therefore maybe it is not necessary to make extensive preparations, maybe the masses are almost ready to go right now, maybe the revolution could break out any day...’ In such a way do the impatient lose the ability to appraise the objective situation, and start to lose contact with reality. This leads to constant predictions of revolution ‘within this decade’, or ‘within a couple years’, or even ‘within a few months’—which in turn leads to demoralization when the subjective predictions do not materialize.
“Extreme impatience can thus lead to ultra-‘leftism’ in various guises, and to a distortion of Marxism.
“Impatience can be a good thing or a bad thing. If impatience with the present despicable bourgeois world turns us into revolutionaries, and gets us working toward bringing about revolution, it is of course a very good thing. But if that impatience gets out of hand and leads us into the renunciation of Marxism and the only real path to revolution, it is a very bad thing. We should be impatient for revolution, but we should not let it make us crazy.”
—S.H., The Mass Line and the American Revolutionary Movement, Chapter 31.
IMPERIALISM or CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM
The term ‘imperialism’ in traditional usage means the political and economic control or domination of one country by another. In this general sense, Rome was an imperial power, as was Persia and other ancient empires. However, within revolutionary Marxism the term ‘imperialism’ is generally used as a technical term to mean capitalist imperialism, or the economic and political form that capitalism has taken during the period since the late 19th century. Lenin defined imperialism as the highest and final stage of capitalism, and used the term synonymously with monopoly capitalism.
Among the central characteristics of capitalist imperialism are:
1) The rise of and near universal domination of the capitalist economy by joint-stock corporations, as opposed to individually-owned companies or partnerships.
2) A qualitative increase in the levels of monopoly or oligopoly within capitalist economies, especially within each major nation.
3) A qualitative increase in one or another form of the globalization of capital. In the pre-World War I period this often took place in the form of cartelization (international monopolies or agreements among the monopolies from separate nations). In recent decades this has more frequently taken place in the form of the rise of giant multinational corporations (MNCs), which though nearly always politically based in a single country, nevertheless operate and engage in plunder around the globe like international pirates.
4) A qualitative increase in the importance of the export of capital (as compared with merely the export of commodities, though that is of intensified importance as well).
5) A qualitative increase in the role of the capitalist state in the management of the economy, and often the de facto merger of the state with corporations (such as via bourgeois nationalization of individual companies or industries for certain periods).
6) A qualitative expansion in the importance of the financial aspects of capitalism, the financialization of an ever-growing part of the economy, and the rise in importance of a financial oligarchy at the apex of the bourgeois ruling class structure.
7) A qualitative increase in the importance of the domination and exploitation of other countries by a few militaristic imperialist powers. This first took the form of outright colonialism, with virtually total economic and political control of specific “Third World” countries by individual imperialist powers. But this broke down during the second half of the 20th century, and was replaced with neocolonialism, wherein the dominated countries are nominally independent but still exploited and under the general control of foreign imperialism via the medium of local agents of the imperialists (the comprador capitalist class).
8) Politically, capitalist-imperialism is overall a period of world strife, constant imperialist wars whereby the big powers seek to establish, maintain, or re-establish control over other countries, and even some very disastrous and devastating world wars among the imperialist countries and against socialist countries. And, overall, and despite some periods of quiescence, it is a period of the revolutionary upsurge of the people of the world against the capitalist-imperialist system.
See also below, and: NATURAL RESOURCE CURSE, NEOCOLONIALISM, U.S. IMPERIALISM, WORLD IMPERIALIST SYSTEM
IMPERIALISM — Lenin’s Definition Of
[Intro to be added...]
“And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its complete development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: 1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital,’ of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in the stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.” —Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline” (1916), (Peking: FLP, 1975), pp. 105-6; LCW 22:266-7.
IMPERIALISM — World System of
See: WORLD IMPERIALIST SYSTEM
See also: IMPERIALISM
“All capitalist ruling classes in this era function within the world
imperialist system and seize all of the world’s wealth and resources they are able to.
a. The bourgeoisie (including its alliance in some cases with a feudal landlord class) in most countries is far too weak internationally to exercise significant imperialist control over other countries, or to organize significant economic exploitation of them.
b. In a few countries the ruling bourgeoisie is far stronger, and has quite a free hand to boss around other countries and/or to economically exploit them to a considerable degree. These are the countries we call imperialist countries.”
—N. B. Turner, et al., Is China an Imperialist Country? — Considerations and Evidence (2015), summary thesis number 2, p. 144. Also available online at http://www.red-path.net, and in PDF format at http://www.bannedthought.net/International/Red-Path/01/RP-8.5x11-IsChinaAnImperialistCountry-140320.pdf and elsewhere.
“IMPERIALIST ECONOMISTS” [Political Trend among the Bolsheviks]
“Imperialist economists—Lenin’s designation for the
opportunists Bukharin, Pyatakov and Bosh in the Russian
Social-Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) during the First World War. The
‘imperialist economists’ demanded that the Party delete the programmatic statement
on the right of nations to self-determination. They also came out against the entire
minimum programme of the R.S.D.L.P., which envisaged a struggle for democratic
reforms that would facilitate the preparation and transition to the socialist
revolution. Lenin laid bare the opportunistic essence of the position of Bukharin
and those sharing his views, its kinship with ‘economism’—the opportunistic trend in
Russian Social-Democracy at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the
20th. Like the old ‘economists,’ who could not understand the need for the political
struggle of the working class under conditions of capitalism, the ‘imperialist
economists’ did not understand the significance of the struggle for democratic
reforms under conditions of imperialism.
“Certain views of the ‘imperialist economists’ were shared by Left Social-Democrats of Holland, America, Poland, etc. That is why Lenin called ‘imperialist economism’ an ‘international disease’ [LCW 35:254].
“A number of articles by Lenin are devoted to a criticism of ‘imperialist economism’: ‘On the Incipient Trend of “Imperialist Economism”’ [LCW 23:1-9]; ‘Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)’ [LCW 23:10-15]; ‘A Caracature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism’ [LCW 23:16-64].” —Note 155, LCW 38.
Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index
MASSLINE.ORG Home Page