In this theoretical and the next, which will also be in my office, we'll see two very intense

issues. The first is on imperialism in its main features, and the second will be the main
characters of the world that is based on the transformation of capitalism of free competition
or liberal capitalism, since the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. A world war
one hand, and revolutions, on the other.
We come to see, in the previous Theoretical and Theoretical and Practical, on the one
hand the consolidation of the capitalist mode of production in the nineteenth century, that
was that we called "bourgeois revolutions" and its consummation in capitalist societies in
the process industrialization in Europe and later in the United States and Japan; and the
expansion of global capitalism, with colonialist policies of capitalist countries still liberal
stage yet with the main objective of opening markets for the placement of surplus of
industrial products.
In practical this week we have seen the birth of the new Latin American states under the
hegemony of the landed oligarchies and large merchants, as we saw in Mariategui to Peru
or Argentina Pomer for Mitre during the war against Paraguay. Oligarchies that prevented
the Latin American revolutions would culminate in democratic and independent capitalist
countries.
That is, we have seen the process by which Latin American revolutions were revolutions of
national independence but were not social revolutions, not radically transformed the
internal class relations. And we saw that those --clases feudal landlords and merchants
who were already exploiting in colonial times but were not yet the dominant classes and
they were just the triumph of the revolution and imposing their hegemona--, converted and
in ruling classes they not directed autonomous development, nor eliminated the precapitalist societies such burdens that entailed virtually throughout Latin America: the
estates, warlordism, the relations of personal dependence. That is, those ruling classes
not democratized nor society, nor the economy and, of course, politics.
These states would end up ending, not in democratic states but oligarchic, aristocratic,
exclusive and, politically, fraudulent and repressive view States.
At the same time those classes, depending on their interests, from its hegemony in the
state, were commercially subordinated to industrial bourgeoisie of the capitalist powers
rising, mainly England but also other European powers, ending in a process , becoming
appendages of European local industrial bourgeoisie. Unable to be true independent
nations and, by contrast, quite capable of becoming regional gendarmes serving the
industrial, commercial and financial interests that were associated classes. Example of
that spirit of gendarme in the service of interests that were beginning to just be imperialists
was the war of Paraguay in 1865, a real war of extermination in which Mitre and the
governments of Brazil and Uruguay joined instances of merchants and British financiers
not only to overthrow Lopez, but to destroy the Paraguay and its attempt to autonomous
development based on production for the domestic market, the protection of national
industry. A genocide that ultimately led to physical and economic destruction of Paraguay,
a true genocide of its people and the razing of these sketches of industrial development
that had been gestated; and they ended up imposing, like the rest of the countries of Latin
America and especially Argentina, landlordism and open door policy towards foreign
capital.
But this occurred, as I just said, on the threshold of income of British capitalism and other
powers in a new stage: the stage of monopoly capitalism and imperialism of the late
nineteenth century and early twentieth century. That is our topic today.

The first issue is approximate a definition, see what is the essence of the phenomenon
under which we will talk. The question then is what is imperialism? The first thing to say is
that there is a time, the current time. Begin then, and is still in force. We are living in the
era of imperialism, a phase of capitalist development with features that give capitalism a
new structure and at the same time, new contradictions. And they also constitute new
socio-economic formations in Latin America.
It is very likely that some of you have read the famous work which we take as the basis of
our discussion, which is that of Lenin: "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism".
Those who did have maybe an advantage; those who did not recommend you to do it, and
they have among their favorite books because it sheds a bright light on still existing
phenomena that will serve, in the specific case of matter to light essential aspects of all
periods that will be addressed; but it also serves us, of course, to take a stand against the
things of this world, to influence our world today.
You remember, those who once walked, Lenin characterized this time by five traits. Then
I'll start listing them as titles and then describe them.
The teacher writes on the board the following outline:
1- Monopolies
2- Financial Capital = bank capital industrial capital +
3- export of capital investments abroad =
Cast 4- (dispute) between economic monopolies
5- Cast (dispute) Territorial among the imperialist powers
The first he described Lenin supported by researchers and scholars of international
economics of his time, some liberal bourgeois origin, as Hobson, other Marxist origin, as
Hilferding is that in these last decades of the nineteenth century in European countries In
the United States, Japan, capitalist competition,