The imperialist unions, the inter-imperialist contradictions
and the stance of the communists.
By Makis Papadopoulos*.
Source: International Communist Review, Issue 6, 2015.
A
century has passed since the historic theoretical confrontation
between Lenin and Kautsky in relation to the definition that determines the socio-economic
content of imperialism, as well as over the theory of
“Ultra-imperialism”. It is well-known that Lenin waged fierce
polemics against Kautsky’s position on imperialism, which
identified it as a policy preferred by the advanced industrial
countries in order to dominate weaker agricultural countries. He also
more generally criticized the detachment of imperialist politics from
its economic base, the dominance of monopoly capitalism. It is also
well-known that Lenin criticized the opportunist position which
argued that the development of the capitalist economy internationally
leads to ultra-imperialism, to a great interdependence of the
interests of the bourgeois classes of the various countries.
This
opportunist position argued that this would result in the inevitable
peaceful resolution of their differences, the signing of imperialist
agreements which would lead to a unified, peaceful, organized global
capitalist economy. The entire history of the 20th century,
the outbreak of two major imperialist wars and the plethora of
smaller ones confirmed the correctness of the Leninist theoretical
approach. Nevertheless, as we will see, the opportunist view retains
a strong influence, a fact that underlines the timeliness of this
specific historical confrontation for contemporary conditions.
1.THE
TIMELINESS OF LENIN’S CRITICISM OF KAUTSKY’S THEORY
A
number of opportunist positions and analyses that in essence
understand imperialism chiefly as a foreign policy, as a foreign
external invasion and domination of a weaker bourgeois state by a
stronger one today continue to have a strong influence in the ranks
of the international communist movement. These analyses often
highlight existing imperialist military offensives and interventions
of the most powerful capitalist states, the penetration of foreign
monopolies in order to exploit and control the market of a country or
a wider region, but in a way detached from the socio-economic content
of imperialism, as the final highest stage of capitalism.
These
views restrict the labour movement to making a superficial
condemnation of the imperialist interventions and at the same time
they mistakenly promote the possibility of the social alliance of the
working class with bourgeois forces, with the aim of overcoming the
backwardness of capitalist development in the country and fully
acquiring its national independence. In this way, the goal of
enhancing the position of a capitalist country inside the imperialist
system, a goal that leads to class collaboration, is advanced as
being “anti-imperialist” and presented as a radical goal for the
struggle against imperialist dependency.
For
this reason, it is particularly important to project the Leninist
position on imperialism, as the reactionary era of capitalism which
is decaying and dying, with unified features for all the states of
the international imperialist system, whether they are weaker or
stronger at any given moment.
These
unified features are related to the dominance of the monopolies, of
the powerful stock companies and the sharpening of the capitalist
competition, the formation of finance capital, the increase of the
importance of the export of capital in relation to the export of
commodities, the struggle for the redivision of the markets and
territories amongst the imperialist states and international monopoly
groups.
The
dominance of the monopolies, of the powerful stock companies leads to
the distancing and separation of capitalist ownership from the
management and organization of capitalist production and constitutes
the economic basis for the intensification of the parasitic role of
the bourgeois class in each capitalist state. Dangerous parasites
profit on a daily basis from the buying and selling of the shares of
capitalist businesses, without any other relationship with the
specific businesses.
Parasitism,
the sharpening of the basic contradiction between the social
character of production and the capitalist appropriation of its
results characterize all the capitalist states, regardless of their
position in the international imperialist system.
At
the same time, the strengthening of the trend for capital exports
accelerates capitalism’s development in countries to which these
capital exports are destined. It also contributes, together
with the speed of technological developments, to the rapid change of
the correlation of forces between states in the international
imperialist system, according to the law of uneven development.
Lenin
highlighted in his writings at the beginning of the 20th century
that a small group of states possessed the leading position in the
global market thanks to the trusts, cartel and inter-state relations
between creditor states and debtor states. He shed light on the
increase of strength achieved by these specific states, which play
the role of the creditor, the usurer, the rentier (Rentnerstaat) in
relation to the debtor states. He also focused on the group of strong
states that possessed colonies in his era. Following the Leninist
method, we must examine the contemporary changes in the positions of
the states in the international imperialist system. Today about 200
states have acquired their political independence. The
unequal relations between capitalist states are inherent in
capitalism and the constant changes in the correlation of forces
amongst the states are a result of the impact of the law of uneven
development. Consequently, the safeguarding of equal relations
between bourgeois states, on the terrain of capitalism, cannot be a
goal of struggle for the communists.
A
situation characterized by unequal relations of interdependence
amongst the entirety of the capitalist states has been formed in the
contemporary imperialist system. Strong creditor states of the
20th century have
today been transformed into debtor states (e.g. the current large
state debts of the USA, France and Italy), while China is today a
creditor state. The change in the correlation of forces between
Britain and India from the 20th to
the 21st century is
the most characteristic example.
Similarly,
today the issue of the formation of a “labour aristocracy” is not
restricted to a handful of strong capitalist states. The expansion
and deepening of capitalist relations of production in the
contemporary imperialist system creates the conditions for the
emergence of a “labour aristocracy” in the majority of capitalist
states. Consequently, the splitting of the unity of the working class
and the penetration of petty bourgeois views into the labour movement
takes on a general character.
It
is inside this framework that the communists must examine the
development of the imperialist alliances, the unequal inter-state
relations, the existing imperialist military, political and economic
dependencies, as well as the intensification of imperialist
interventions, the expansion of local wars and the danger of a new
generalized imperialist war.
Otherwise,
any predictions will be unsound, as they will not be based on the
relationship between the economy and politics. Otherwise, there is
the real danger that the communist movement will in the end serve the
interests of one of the competing imperialist centres instead of
utilizing the inter-imperialist contradictions for the revolutionary
overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
For
this reason, the Leninist criticism of the theory of
“ultra-imperialism” acquires particular significance. A series of
contemporary theoretical and political analyses are in essence
returning to the core of Kautsky’s opportunist viewpoint (e.g.
globalization, empire), invoking certain existent contemporary
trends.
They
advance the expansion of the strength of companies with a
multinational stock composition, the larger growth rate of world
trade, the widening of the interdependencies between the capitalist
states as contemporary features of a new historical stage of
capitalism in relation to imperialism.
In
reality, all these phenomena reflect the general trend for the
internationalization of production, investments, the movement of
capital inside the framework of the global capitalist market.
However, this tendency cannot negate the impact of the law of uneven
development nor can it reverse the fact that the basic part of the
social reproduction of capital is carried on the terrain of the
nation-state formation of the capitalist economy. The
inter-imperialist contradictions are sharpening in the context of
this objective and contradictory movement of the capitalist economy.
The
conditions for the expanded reproduction of the capital of the
monopoly groups, the stock companies continue to be in their majority
formed in the framework of the nation-states, as well as of the
respective inter-state imperialist alliances in which they
participate. This is related to the conditions of taxation, lending,
wage levels, tariff protections, state subsidies for exports, state
backing and financing. At the same time, each national bourgeois
state utilizes its economic, political and military strength to
support its domestic monopoly groups in the international
competition. Regardless of the possible multinational composition of
its shareholders, each monopoly group has bonds with a specific
bourgeois state and the related imperialist alliances. In the final
analysis, the stock company chiefly develops in the framework of
nation-state capitalism and it acquires the ability to export a
section of its capital on this objective terrain. The bourgeois
nation state remains the basic organ that secures the economic
dominance of the monopolies, the concentration and centralization of
capital in competition with the corresponding processes in other
states.
We
must point out that despite the generally upward trend of
international production, of the section of the global GDP that comes
from FDI in host countries, as well as of world trade, the majority
of capital reproduction of each bourgeois class takes place in the
domestic market of each bourgeois state. The domestic market
maintains its dominant role for capital accumulation even in the USA,
despite the increase of the importance of subsidiary companies of the
multinational monopoly groups which have their headquarters in the
USA (TABLE
1).
The
developments confirm Lenin’s prediction in 1915, when in his
preface to N. Bukharin’s related work he noted that: “There
is no doubt that the trend of development is towards a
single world trust absorbing all enterprises without exception and
all states without exception. But this development proceeds in such
circumstances, at such a pace, through such contradictions, conflicts
and upheavals—not only economic but political, national, etc.—that
inevitably imperialism will burst and capitalism will be transformed
into its opposite long before one world trust materialises,
before the “ultra-imperialist”, world-wide amalgamation of
national finance capitals takes place.”[1]
In
contemporary conditions, the sharpening of the unevenness as a
general phenomenon in the international imperialist system has been
borne out. The synchronized crisis in the imperialist centres of the
USA, the EU and Japan in 2008-2009 is a characteristic example of
this. This crisis accelerated changes in the correlation of forces
that had been gestating in the preceding 20 years.
As
is apparent from the relevant data, the USA’s and Eurozone’s
share of the Gross World Product is receding, while that of China and
BRICS is increasing. There is a similar situation developing in terms
of the share of world trade. The differences in the dynamics of
capitalist growth amongst the strongest states is also reflected in
the annual rate of change in GDP. (TABLES
2 to 5)
The
specific alteration of the correlation of forces sharpens, as we will
see, the inter-imperialist contradictions amongst and inside the
established imperialist alliances (e.g. inside the euro-Atlantic
alliance of NATO). It also undermines the stability of today’s
labyrinthine network of agreements and organizations related to world
trade, the international transactions in the financial sector and the
international movement of capital in general. This specific network
was formed after the 2ndWorld
War and developed un the first decade after the counterrevolution.
The
struggle in the IMF since 2010 is characteristic, when there was the
proposal for a change in the way the 24 member executive board is
elected, as well as the quotas that reflect the correlation of forces
for decision-making. There was a proposal for the reduction of the
quotas of the European countries and an increase for the BRICS
countries, as well as a small reduction in the USA’s quota
(maintaining its ability to exercise a veto on certain decisions).
The US Senate has not yet accepted these changes.
It
is also characteristic that China and the BRICS in general have
decided to set up international development banks and reserve funds
as alternatives to the World Bank and IMF (e.g. AIIB, CRA, NDB). In
any case, we must not forget that all the related initiatives and
competition presuppose inter-state agreements and negotiations.
2.
THE TEMPORARY CHARACTER OF THE IMPERIALIST ALLIANCES
The
law of uneven developments results in the change of the material
conditions on whose basis the alliances between the capitalist
states, especially in the era of monopoly capitalism, are formed.
Lenin
very aptly highlighted this specific conclusion by examining the
economic content of the slogan for the “United States of Europe”.
He stressed that in the conditions of capitalism the United States of
Europe would either be reactionary or unrealizable, as it would
amount to a permanent agreement for the division of the colonies and
markets amongst the major European bourgeois states. He explained
that a temporary agreement between the European states would be
possible so that they could suffocate socialism in Europe together
and protect the looted colonies and markets that they control against
the USA and Japan.
History
has confirmed the Leninist prediction. Lenin’s analysis shines a
light on the basic characteristics of the imperialist alliances.
The
imperialist alliances are inter-state alliances that express the
common interests of the bourgeois classes of their member-states. The
common interests are related to expanding their monopolies,
buttressing their competitiveness in the international imperialist
system in conditions of sharpening competition, as well as
confronting the labour movement and neutralizing the revolutionary
communist parties in a unified way.
However,
the common aims of the monopolies of the various states of an
imperialist alliance cannot negate the unevenness and nation-state
organization which are the foundations for capitalist accumulation.
They cannot negate the competition and contradictions inside each
imperialist alliance and also amongst the various imperialist
alliances and axes. The realignments in the international correlation
of forces also lead to changes in the composition and structure of
the imperialist alliances. Imperialist alliances and the sudden
exacerbation of inter-imperialist contradictions, which lead to the
breaking of alliances, are two side of the same coin.
A
very characteristic example is the EU, which today is an advanced
form of alliance between the capitalist states in Europe and has
undergone various stages in its development.
Its
leading core was the postwar Franco-German cooperation with the aim
of strengthening their monopolies, as well as buttressing capitalism
against the socialist section of Europe.
After
the overthrows of the socialist countries and in the new
international framework of capitalist competition, the unified aims
of the monopolies of the EU states against the working class and the
peoples more generally is historically the decisive feature that
permeates the Maastricht Treaty, the Lisbon Strategy, the strategy of
“Europe 2020 for employment and growth”. The political line to
ensure cheap labour power in relation to the current level of
productivity, the increase of the rate of exploitation of the working
class and the promotion of the “liberation” of the markets,
particularly in strategically significant sectors, were demonstrated
to be the main cohesive features of the EU. Consequently,
reactionary changes to labour relations, the lagging behind of wages
in relation to the increase in productivity, privatizations in the
energy, telecommunications and transport sectors, the
commercialization of education, healthcare and social-security were
and are being advanced.
Similarly,
the formation of the Eurozone was pushed forwards with the
inter-state agreement of the member-states that joined it due to the
advantages provided to the monopolies by the single currency, for
example relative stability in terms of currency and transactions, the
increase of trade transactions, the improvement of credit terms for
private and public investments, the international character of the
common currency.
However
the monetary welding together of the economies of member-states with
different levels of economic strength, productivity and
competitiveness, not only does not blunt but on the contrary sharpens
the unevenness in their development. Even before the outbreak of the
international synchronized capitalist crisis of 2008-2009, the
Eurozone and EU were being put to the test by the impact of the law
of uneven development. We should remember the contradictions of
the period 2000-2007 regarding the “Stability and Growth pact”,
the formation of a common tax policy, the level of the EU budget, the
‘Constitutional Treaty”.
The
outbreak of the international crisis in 2008-2009 sharpened the
unevenness between the member-states that was expressed by the
increase of the differences in productivity, volume of exports,
outflows of direct capital investments to other countries. The
correlation of forces was altered inside the hard core of the EU in
favour of Germany and at the expense of Italy and France. This is
difference is also reflected in the different fiscal situation in the
various countries.
Germany
was able with relative ease to unify its internal market after the
assimilation of the former GDR, to provide a profitable outlet for
its exports inside the Eurozone, forming large trade surpluses and at
the same time maintaining the euro as a strong international reserve
currency.
3.
ASPECTS OF THE SHARPENING OF THE INTER-IMPERIALIST CONTRADICTIONS
TODAY
After
the first decade of the victory of the counterrevolution and
capitalist stabilization in these countries, the map of capitalist
Europe, Eurasia, takes on a new form, as well as trends for the
formation of new rivalries or new alliances (e.g. BRICS).
The
competition of NATO with the Russia-China axis is today expressed
with particularly sharpness in Ukraine, the Middle East, North
Africa, in Eurasia as a whole and is related to the control of the
energy resources and transport routes, the control and division of
the markets, the geopolitical reinforcement of each side.
NATO
expands its activity in Eastern Europe and in the countries of the
Baltic. Its plan is a continuation of the USA and EU’s intervention
in Ukraine, in competition with Russia which has already led to a
very dangerous situation.
At
the same time, the USA and EU continue their military operations in
Syria and Iraq and escalate their intervention in the Middle East and
North Africa in the name of dealing with the “Islamic Caliphate”,
the jihadists, which they had substantially supported in the previous
phase.
The
initial intermediate agreement of Lausanne between Iran and the 5+ 1
group (USA, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany) is a relatively
new element which is related with the declaration of the jihadists
(Islamic State) as an important enemy of the Euro-Atlantic centre in
the region. In essence the USA, with the need to deal with the
jihadists as a pretext, is forming a new and better elaborated plan
for geopolitical control and for the change of the correlation of
forces in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, which includes
the cooption of Iran. The interventions as well as the diplomatic
maneuvers of the USA provoke discontent, differentiations and
internal processes inside the bourgeois classes of the traditional
allies of US foreign policy like Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
There
is also a confrontation being conducted within the Eurozone over the
relative relaxation of today’s restrictive fiscal and monetary
policy. France and Italy, supported by the USA, are pressuring
the German government in this direction. The confrontation is
sharpening on the basis of the prolonged difficulty in stabilizing
the course of the Eurozone’s recovery, as well as on the basis
of the widening of the unevenness within it.
The
deterioration of Greece’s position inside the EU and also in the
wider Mediterranean region after the outbreak of the crisis in 2009
is an emblematic example of uneven development inside the EU. The
increasing sluggishness of France and Italy’s economic strength in
relation to Germany is testing the cohesion of the hard core of the
Eurozone and constitutes an objective basis for the intensification
of the confrontation amongst the bourgeois classes of the specific
states. Various proposals are emerging in the framework of this
confrontation in relation to the future structure of the Eurozone,
the conditions for forming a unified financial sector and joint
fiscal policy (e.g. Jean Claude Juncker’s report)
The
US government is afraid that a prolonged recession in the Eurozone
will have a negative impact on the US economy. In parallel, the more
general confrontation between the USA and Germany is underway over
which country has the hegemonic position in Europe. At the same time,
the opposition of the Euro-Atlantic camp to the China-Russia axis and
BRICS more generally is sharpening.
The
USA is proposing to the EU a free trade and investments agreement
between the two sides of the Atlantic that includes the removal of
tariffs and mainly of the rules, regulations and specifications which
today impede the free movement of capital in various sectors of the
economy. The US proposal has been aptly described as a proposal to
create an “economic NATO” against the dynamism of China, Russia
and BRICS in general. If it is implemented, it is estimated that it
will include 50% of the world’s production, 30% of world trade and
20% of Foreign Direct Investments internationally.
The
negotiations began in 2013, but are proceeding slowly and tortuously.
A section of the German and French bourgeois classes assess that the
US proposal is basically a “Trojan Horse” in order to secure US
hegemony in Europe in the long term. The German Institute IFO
evaluates that the implementation of the agreement will weaken the
trade flows inside the EU (which today safeguard the large German
surpluses) and will reinforce the transatlantic flows. It predicts
that the agreement will lead to the greater increase of the per
capita GDP of the USA as against that of the EU and is concerned
about the future of the euro in the context of the new transatlantic
relationship. The US intervention in order to highlight a number of
scandals involving German monopoly groups (e.g. Siemens, Volkswagen)
is a characteristic example of the sharpening of the competition
between the USA and Germany at the economic level.
In
addition, the EU’s energy policy and its approach to the situation
in Ukraine are two basic fields where the USA’s efforts to
undermine the relations between Russia and Germany and the divergence
as regards the interests of the EU member-states manifest themselves.
The USA is attempting to curtail the dynamism of the trade relations
of the EU with China and Russia (TABLES
5a and 5B)
.
.
The
Ukrainian issue is where the relations between the EU and Russia are
mainly being tested, both in relation to the observance of the Minsk
agreement (for a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces,
the lifting of the economic blockade against the regions of Southeast
Ukraine, etc), and in relation to the maintenance and possible
escalation of economic sanctions. States like Hungary, Italy, Austria
and Cyprus are seeking the relaxation of the sanctions, while
Britain, Poland and Holland are arguing in the opposite direction.
However, the economic war of the sanctions in essence negatively
affects the interests of the monopoly groups of France (e.g.
cancellations of orders from its military industry), Germany (e.g.
export of machines), in contrast to the minimal consequences for the
USA. The French President Hollande had officially taken a position
against the escalation of the relevant sanctions.
In
Asia, the USA together with Japan is advancing the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) with the participation of 12 countries, excluding
China, and of course maintaining their primacy in the World Bank and
strong role in the IMF. The US Congress is also refusing to ratify a
revision of the IMF’s regulations that would increase the
percentage of China’s votes in the decision-making process.
Naturally,
the exacerbation of the contradictions between the USA and China are
not only limited to the economic sphere. There is also intense
mobility in the military sphere, focused on the creation of military
infrastructures in order to control the South China Sea.
4.
THE UTILIZATION OF THE INTER-IMPERIALIST CONTRADICTIONS BY THE
REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST VANGUARD
The
history of the 20th century
provides a wealth of experience in relation to the potential and
importance of utilizing inter-imperialist contradictions for the
victory of the socialist revolution in one country and for the
success of the attempts to construct socialism.
Lenin
highlighted the basic conditions for the successful utilization of
the inter-imperialist contradictions: the independence of the
revolutionary vanguard of the working class, the communist party,
from the aims and goals of each imperialist alliance and the stable
strategic orientation for the revolutionary overthrow of the domestic
bourgeois class both in the period of the imperialist war and also in
the period of the imperialist peace.
The
activity of the Bolsheviks to ensure the victory of the October
Revolution and establish the first socialist state in world is the
most shining example. It demonstrated that the labour movement in
each country must not be trapped by the aims of the domestic
bourgeois class or politically tail one of the competing imperialist
centres.
The
Bolsheviks utilized the sharpening contradictions between Germany and
Britain in the period of the 1st global
imperialist war, not only for the victory of the socialist revolution
but also to safeguard the establishment of workers’ power.
The
inner-party discussion in January and February 1918 provides
important lessons for the communist movement in relation to the
dilemma: the signing of a peace treaty with Germany that contained
painful conditions for Soviet power or the declaration of a just
revolutionary war.
The
supporters of the choice to conduct a revolutionary war put forward a
number of arguments, e.g. that the signing of an agreement
constitutes a betrayal of the principles of proletarian
internationalism, that it transforms the Bolsheviks into agents of
German imperialism, that it does not contribute to the national
liberation of the peoples of Poland and Lithuania.
Lenin
responded that concluding a separate peace with Germany “we
free ourselves as much as is possible at the present moment from
both hostile imperialist groups, we take advantage of their mutual
enmity and warfare which hamper concerted action on their part
against us”.[2]
He
made it clear that the principle underpinning this political choice
of Soviet power: “the
underlying principle of our tactics must not be, which of the two
imperialisms is it more profitable to aid at this juncture, but
rather, how can the Socialist revolution be most surely and reliably
ensured the possibility of consolidating itself, or, at least, of
maintaining itself in one country until it is joined by other
countries.”[3]
Lenin
also commented on the painful conditions related to the “non-return”
of Poland and Lithuania to Soviet power, which would have paved the
way for the self-determination of these specific nations, and
provided a clear answer: “Let
us examine the argument from the standpoint of theory; which should
be put first, the right of nations to self-determination, or
socialism? Socialism should. Is it permissible, because of a
contravention of the right of nations to self-determination, to allow
the Soviet Socialist Republic to be devoured, to expose it to the
blows of imperialism at a time when imperialism is obviously stronger
and the Soviet Republic obviously weaker? No, it is not
permissible-that is bourgeois and not socialist politics.”[4]
Summarizing
in 1920 the discussion of the RCP (B) on the issue of the concessions
made by Soviet Power, Lenin explained that while opportunism
sacrifices the vital interests of the working class for partial and
short-term gains, the Bolsheviks did the opposite. They gained
precious time by temporarily handing over some territories, without
forming any coalition with German imperialism. In the relevant
historical meeting of the cadres in Moscow, Lenin stressed: “We
must stick to the rule that we must be able to take advantage of the
antagonisms and contradictions existing among the imperialists. Had
we not adhered to this rule, every one of us would have long ago been
strung up by the neck, to the glee of the capitalists.”[5]
Life
itself has vindicated Lenin’s positions. He highlighted that the
criterion for assessing every compromise, every maneuver must be its
contribution to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist power and
the buttressing of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the
countries where the socialist revolution has been victorious. The
utilization of the inter-imperialist contradictions and the national
liberation struggle in the instance of the imperialist invasion and
occupation of a country must be subordinated to this direction.
Of
course the ideological, political and organizational readiness of a
CP also includes the correct assessment of the objective conditions,
especially when we have rapid changes of events.
Unfortunately
this necessary focus on the goal of the victory of the socialist
revolution and workers’ power was not unwaveringly maintained
during the entire course of the Communist International and later of
the international communist movement.Under the burden initially of
the prolonged “peaceful” period of the class struggle, the
relative parliamentary representation of
the CPs and then the impact of social-democracy
that had been assimilated into the system (but with
influence in the working class masses), there were oscillations in
the strategy of the newly established communist parties that led down
the slippery road of cooperation with bourgeois and opportunist
forces.
There
were important changes and alternations on crucial issues, such as
the stance towards social-democracy, bourgeois democracy, fascism and
imperialist war, which escalated up to the 7th Congress of the
Communist International and until the 2nd global imperialist war.
To
begin with, the mistaken separation of the imperialist powers and
alliances into aggressive, pro-war, fascist ones like Germany and
pro-peace, defensive, antifascist ones like Britain.
This
analysis was based on detaching the domestic policy of the bourgeois
state from its foreign policy. It fostered the illusion that the
foreign policy is determined by the ideological current that is
dominant in the bourgeois government of the day, by whether it is
fascist or social-democratic. However, the Leninist analysis has
demonstrated that the goals of foreign policy are determined by the
strategic interests of monopoly capital in each country, by the
bourgeoisie’s goals regarding the participation in the control and
redivision of the markets.
The
events themselves confirmed the correctness of the Leninist position.
This mistaken distinction in the end concealed the imperialist
character of the war, the fact that the goal of all the warring
capitalist states was both the maintenance and strengthening of
bourgeois power after the end of the war and that they also
consistently treated the USSR as a class enemy.
The
bourgeois democracies of the USA, Britain and France systematically
attempted in the 1930s to orient German aggression towards the Soviet
Union. They desired the declaration of war between Germany and
the USSR. This aim explains the notorious policy of non-intervention,
the appeasement of Germany, while its imperialist plans unfolded. It
explains why the bourgeois governments of Britain and France
tolerated the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938, why they
signed the Munich Agreement and the annexation of a section of
Czechoslovakia by Germany in the same year. It explains why they did
nothing about the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and why they
undermined every effort of the USSR to sign a tripartite mutual
assistance pact against the Nazi advance.
The
new definition of fascism was also similarly fraught with problems,
which the 7th Congress of the Communist International linked with the
most reactionary section of finance capital, in opposition to its
previous analyses and decisions that correctly defined fascism as a
form of reactionary offensive carried out by finance capital as a
whole, in a unified way. Until 1933 the relevant elaborations of the
Communist International stressed that the “general
line of all the bourgeois parties, including social democracy, is
towards the fascization of the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie”[6] and
characterized the social-democrats as social-fascists. The specific
analyses of the Communist International shed light on the class
character of the fascist current, which does not alter in relation to
whether this specific current has formed a bourgeois government or is
in opposition. The formation of a bourgeois government in Germany by
the National Socialist Party had been supported by the largest German
monopoly groups several years before the 1933 elections. In any case,
the fascist government in Italy had been formed in the 1920s, before
this specific analysis of the Communist International emerged.
In
the end, the line of the people’s antifascist front, with the
participation of communists and in cooperation with the “left-wing”
of social-democracy, with the aim of preventing fascism and war,
became the so-called transitional goal of communists before and after
the 2nd World War.
This led to the entrapment of the movement under the flag of social
democracy. In this way, the preparation and escalation of the
struggle for workers’ power were sidelined.
The
Popular Front in France is the most characteristic example of the
negative consequences of these choices. It formed a government in
1936 after its electoral victory with 57% of the vote, after mass
working class struggles and antifascist demonstrations. The French
CP, which received 15%, supported the bourgeois government without
participating.
In
the beginning, the government took certain measures to relieve the
people, it provided some wage increases, it established the 40 hour
week. Later on however, it devalued the franc in order to protect the
competitiveness of French capital and tolerated the major increase of
inflation that worsened the situation of the popular strata. It did
not provide any military assistance to the antifascist forces of
Spain. Despite the fact that the composition of the Parliament did
not change, there were changes inside the government. In 1939 the
French government handed over ships from the Spanish fleet to Franco
and returned the gold it had held as security on loans since 1931. In
the same year it outlawed the French CP, after the signing of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. In the end the parliament that had been
elected in 1936 allowed the formation of the Petain government, the
collaboration with Nazi Germany.
Clearly,
no one must ignore the significant efforts of Soviet foreign policy
to utilize the inter-imperialist contradictions at a diplomatic and
military level so that a united front of all the imperialist centres
would not be formed in order to support the German military offensive
being prepared against the USSR.
The
USSR waged a difficult battle against time in order to complete its
military preparation and to delay the expected German offensive for
as long as possible. The report of the 18th Congress of the party in
1939 demonstrates the scale and significance of this effort. However
it was wrong that contingent choices and maneuvers of Soviet foreign
policy were elevated into theory and integrated into the political
line of the international communist movement.
Therefore,
especially in the capitalist west, the CPs did not in essence shape
and did not apply a strategy for transforming the imperialist war or
liberation struggle into a struggle for the conquest of power.
Essentially, the strategy of the communist movement did not place on
the agenda the problem of overthrowing bourgeois power in certain
countries where a revolutionary situation was formed, as in Greece.
It did not base itself on the fact that the basic contradiction
between capital and labour was objectively contained inside the armed
antifascist-liberation struggle in specific countries.
5.
TIMELY CONCLUSIONS
In
today’s difficult and complex conditions, as the inter-imperialist
contradictions are sharpening and the danger of a generalized
imperialist war is increasing, the communists have the task of
decisively and methodically struggling so that the working class does
not align behind the bourgeoisie of its country, so that it is not
trapped into choosing to join forces with one of the competing
imperialist alliances. The constant efforts for the daily political
and economic struggles not to be detached from the main revolutionary
political task are a prerequisite for the achievement of this aim.
The goal of working class power must not be pushed to the margins by
another “transitional” political goal on the terrain of
capitalism (e.g. the change of the bourgeois government). The
revolutionary strategic orientation must remain stable both when the
movement is on an upward trend or in retreat, without watering
it down in the name of the outbreak of the economic crisis, the rise
of the fascist current, the danger of or waging of an imperialist
war.
The
communists must educate the people and orient the labour movement so
that they place no trust in any bourgeois government, bourgeois class
or imperialist alliance. Only then can they utilize the
inter-imperialist contradictions to the benefit of the historic
mission of the working class and respond to the sudden
intensification of the class struggle.
To
this end, it is important to repeatedly highlight that no imperialist
alliances are permanent and stable and that at the same time they are
inherently reactionary. In the conditions when the EU and Eurozone
were established, for example, their existence as a progressive
phenomenon was even adopted by CPs. Even today there exists similar
confusion and mistaken positions that do not expose the reactionary
character of the EU and the role of uneven development inside it.
It
is also particularly important to understand that unequal relations
and uneven development are inherent to the imperialist system.
Consequently, the labour movement can not have as its goal the
safeguarding of equal inter-state relations on the terrain of
capitalism. Similarly it must be understood that all the bourgeois
classes of every imperialist alliance are jointly responsible for the
escalation of the offensive against the working class.
Consequently,
the aim of conflict and rupture with the EU must be constantly
advanced as features of the struggle for the overthrow of the
monopolies’ power, which (workers’ power) is a precondition for
the disengagement of a country from every imperialist alliance to
work in favor of the people.
By
following this strategy and over the course of its implementation,
the revolutionary labour movement will be able to utilize fissures in
the imperialist EU and NATO in order to truly destabilize bourgeois
power in each member-state and the cohesion of the reactionary
anti-people EU as a whole.
A
key issue is that each CP must form a revolutionary strategy in its
own country and fight against opportunism which pushes it into
becoming the political “tail” of the bourgeois class, against
illusions about the “humanization” of the political line of the
imperialist alliances (e.g. those fostered by the Party of the
European Left regarding the EU). In this direction, each CP must
strengthen its bonds with the working class and the popular strata,
with the aim of mobilizing them for their immediate needs and as well
to awaken their political class consciousness. In this sense the
class struggle, economic-ideological-political, is unified whatever
the correlation of forces between the opposing classes, whether it is
favourable or unfavourable as is the case today in Greece and at a
global level. So, the struggle for exclusively free public modern
infrastructure and health services, for the recovery of the losses
the people suffered during the deep crisis, for the abolition of the
anti-worker laws must be conducted integrated into a line of rupture
with the EU, capital and its power, for workers’ power, the
dictatorship of the proletariat, which will lead to a full
disengagement from the EU and NATO, will socialize the monopolies and
the concentrated means of production in general.
At
the same time, it is important to strengthen the coordination of the
struggle at a European and international level, based on the
contemporary needs and rights of the working class. The
interventions of the “Initiative of Communist and Worker’s
Parties of Europe” for the condemnation of the imperialist plans at
the EU and NATO summits, to denounce the imperialist interventions in
Syria, Iraq, Libya and Israel’s attacks against the Palestinian
people, as well as the development of activity to deal with the
dangers of a general imperialist war that the sharpening of the
inter-imperialist contradictions in Ukraine and the Middle East is
creating, pave the way in this direction.
It
is in our hands to strengthen the struggle against the opportunist
current in order to revive and empower the international communist
movement.
|
Table 1: THE EVOLUTION OF
AMERICAN MULTINATIONALS |
|||||
|
|
1994 |
2004 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
|
Value Added |
1773288 |
3220723 |
3740989 |
3740733 |
4127199 |
|
Domestic |
1361792 |
2366467 |
2500543 |
2595776 |
2885927 |
|
Subsidiaries
(MOFA*) |
411496 |
854256 |
1240446 |
1144957 |
1241272 |
|
% MOFA |
23,21% |
26,52% |
33,16% |
30,61% |
30,08% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditure |
306364 |
476098 |
685444 |
598862 |
604631 |
|
Parent company |
234617 |
350919 |
501893 |
431796 |
438327 |
|
Subsidiary (MOFA) |
71747 |
125179 |
183551 |
167066 |
166304 |
|
% MOFA |
23,42% |
26,29% |
26,78% |
27,90% |
27,51% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R&D spending |
103451 |
190029 |
240462 |
246502 |
251983 |
|
Parent company |
91574 |
164189 |
198763 |
207297 |
212513 |
|
Subsidiary (MOFA) |
11877 |
2584 |
41699 |
39205 |
3947 |
|
%MOFA |
11,48% |
1,36% |
17,34% |
15,90% |
1,57% |
|
Source :
BureauEconomicAnalysis
* MOFAMajorityOwnedForeignAffiliates | |||||
|
Table
2: GDP at current prices
In billions of dollars (US) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
COUNTRY / YEAR |
2000 |
2005 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2015 |
|
BRAZIL |
657.249 |
892.106 |
1,694.616 |
1,666.768 |
2,209.266 |
1,903.934 |
|
CHINA |
1,192.854 |
2,287.258 |
4,547.716 |
5,105.769 |
5,949.648 |
11,211.928 |
|
FRANCE |
1,372.452 |
2,207.450 |
2,937.321 |
2,700.658 |
2,651.772 |
2,469.530 |
|
GERMANY |
1,952.920 |
2,862.521 |
3,764.675 |
3,421.630 |
3,418.371 |
3,413.483 |
|
INDIA |
476.636 |
834.218 |
1,224.096 |
1,365.373 |
1,708.460 |
2,308.018 |
|
ITALY |
1,145.564 |
1.856,684 |
2,403.213 |
2,191.781 |
2,130.586 |
1,842.835 |
|
JAPAN |
4.731.199 |
4,571.867 |
4,849.185 |
5,035.141 |
5,495.387 |
4,210.363 |
|
RUSSIA |
259.702 |
763.704 |
1,660.846 |
1,222.645 |
1,524.915 |
1,175.996 |
|
UK |
1,551.752 |
2,415.053 |
2,814.476 |
2,318.782 |
2,409.409 |
2,853.357 |
|
USA |
10,284.750 |
13,093.700 |
14,718.575 |
14,418,.725 |
14,964.400 |
18,124.731 |
| Source IMF | ||||||
|
TABLE 3: GDPin
purchasing power parity |
|||||||
|
Percentage (%) Gross World Product |
|
||||||
|
COUNTRY / YEAR |
2000 |
2005 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2015 |
2020 |
|
BRAZIL |
3,2 |
3,1 |
3,1 |
3,1 |
3,2 |
2,9 |
2,7 |
|
CHINA |
7,4 |
9,7 |
11,9 |
13,1 |
13,7 |
16,9 |
18,9 |
|
FRANCE |
3,4 |
3,1 |
2,8 |
2,7 |
2,7 |
2,3 |
2,1 |
|
GERMANY |
5,0 |
4,2 |
4,0 |
3,8 |
3,7 |
3,4 |
3,0 |
|
ΙNDIA |
4,3 |
4,9 |
5,3 |
5,8 |
6,1 |
7,1 |
8,5 |
|
ΙΤALY |
3,3 |
2,9 |
2,6 |
2,4 |
2,4 |
1,9 |
1,7 |
|
JAPAN |
6,6 |
5,8 |
5,2 |
4,9 |
4,9 |
4,3 |
3,7 |
|
RUSSIA |
3,1 |
3,5 |
3,7 |
3,5 |
3,4 |
3,1 |
2,7 |
|
UK |
3,1 |
3,0 |
2,7 |
2,6 |
2,5 |
2,3 |
2,2 |
|
USA |
21,0 |
19,6 |
17,9 |
17,4 |
17,0 |
16,1 |
15,0 |
|
SourceIMF |
|||||||
|
Table 4: Share in global
commodity exports |
|||||||
|
COUNTRY / YEAR |
1990 |
1995 |
2000 |
2005 |
2008 |
2009 |
2014 |
|
BRAZIL |
0,9 |
0,9 |
0,9 |
1,1 |
1,2 |
1,2 |
1,2 |
|
CHINA |
1,8 |
2,9 |
3,9 |
7,3 |
8,9 |
9,6 |
12,4 |
|
FRANCE |
6,2 |
5,8 |
5,1 |
4,4 |
3,8 |
3,9 |
3,1 |
|
GERMANY |
12,0 |
10,1 |
8,5 |
9,2 |
9,0 |
8,9 |
8,0 |
|
INDIA |
0,5 |
0,6 |
0,7 |
0,9 |
1,2 |
1,3 |
1,7 |
|
ITALY |
4,9 |
4,5 |
3,7 |
3,6 |
3,4 |
3,2 |
2,8 |
|
JAPAN |
8,2 |
8,6 |
7,4 |
5,7 |
4,8 |
4,6 |
3,6 |
|
RUSSIA |
_ |
1,6 |
1,6 |
2,3 |
2,9 |
2,4 |
2,6 |
|
UK |
5,3 |
4,6 |
4,4 |
3,7 |
2,8 |
2,8 |
2,7 |
|
USA |
11,3 |
11,3 |
12,1 |
8,6 |
8,0 |
8,4 |
8,6 |
|
Source UNCTAD |
|||||||
|
Table 5: GDPat constant
prices |
|||||||
|
Annual percentage change |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
COUNTRY / YEAR |
2000 |
2005 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2015 |
2020 |
|
BRAZIL |
4,4 |
3,1 |
5,0 |
-0,2 |
7,6 |
-1,0 |
2,5 |
|
CHINA |
8,4 |
11,3 |
9,6 |
9,2 |
10,4 |
6,8 |
6,3 |
|
FRANCE |
3,9 |
1,6 |
0,2 |
-2,9 |
2,0 |
1,2 |
1,9 |
|
GERMANY |
3,2 |
0,9 |
0,8 |
-5,6 |
3,9 |
1,6 |
1,3 |
|
INDIA |
4,0 |
9,3 |
3,9 |
8,5 |
10,3 |
7,5 |
7,8 |
|
ITALY |
3,7 |
1,0 |
-1,1 |
-5,5 |
1,7 |
0,5 |
1,0 |
|
JAPAN |
2,3 |
1,3 |
-1,0 |
-5,5 |
4,7 |
1,0 |
0,7 |
|
RUSSIA |
10,0 |
6,4 |
5,2 |
-7,8 |
4,5 |
-3,8 |
1,5 |
|
UK |
3,8 |
2,8 |
-0,3 |
-4,3 |
1,9 |
2,7 |
2,1 |
|
USA |
4,1 |
3,3 |
-0,3 |
-2,8 |
2,5 |
3,1 |
2,0 |
|
SourceIMF |
|||||||
Table
5Α EU28,
imports from various regions/countries, as a percentage of total
imports outside the EU28
|
|
2002 |
2005 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
|
China (without Hong Kong) |
9,6 |
13,6 |
15,7 |
17,4 |
18,5 |
17,1 |
16,2 |
16,6 |
|
Russia |
7,0 |
9,6 |
11,4 |
9,7 |
10,6 |
11,6 |
12,0 |
12,3 |
|
USA |
19,5 |
13,4 |
11,5 |
12,6 |
11,3 |
11,1 |
11,5 |
11,6 |
|
OPEC |
6,5 |
9,2 |
9,9 |
7,9 |
8,5 |
9,2 |
10,6 |
9,8 |
|
Source: Elaboration of European
Commission Data |
||||||||
Table
5Β. EU28, exports to various regions/countries, as a percentage of
total exports outside the EU28.
|
|
2002 |
2005 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
|
USA |
28,0 |
23,9 |
18,9 |
18,6 |
17,9 |
17,0 |
17,4 |
16,6 |
|
OPEC |
7,5 |
8,4 |
9,3 |
9,8 |
8,8 |
8,1 |
8,5 |
9,0 |
|
China (without Hong Kong) |
4,0 |
4,9 |
6,0 |
7,5 |
8,4 |
8,8 |
8,6 |
8,5 |
|
Russia |
3,9 |
5,4 |
8,0 |
6,0 |
6,4 |
7,0 |
7,3 |
6,9 |
|
Source: Elaboration of European
Commission data NOTES: |
||||||||
[1]Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy. V.I. Lenin. V. 22, Collected Works. Progress Publishers, Moscow.
[2] On The History Of The Question Of The Unfortunate Peace. V.I. Lenin. V. 26 Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow
[3] Ibid
[4] The Revolutionary Phrase. V.I.Lenin. V. 27, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
[5] Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Activists OfThe Moscow Organisation of the R.C.P.(B.) V.I. Lenin. V. 31, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
[6] 13th
Plenum of the ECCI in 1933
* Makis Papadopoulos is member of the CC of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE).
