The fundamental issue of our times:imperialism

The fundamental issuo

Of-ckr

timost imperialism.

3|w «fe""^{..■v* . .} *' • .'••■.••• V ; ... : v. • ... ;

... - _<—lu! cv_. •'

——-

Understanding the nature of imperialism is the central issue of

our age. It should he the vital concern of _everyone claiming to he a

socialist, whether in the imperialist metropolises or the dominated

periphery, and not simply the crucial problem facing the third world alone.

The link which Lenin established, in Imperialism, the- Highest Stage of Capitalism, between the imperialist exploitation of the dominated peoples and the hegemony of social-democratic ideology over the working classes in the imperialist centres has been quickly for¬

gotten. The social-democratic ideology - or perhaps one should call it social-imperialist - implies "socialism" at home and imperialism abroad. Since things can obviously not be artifically separated in

this way, the socialism in question becomes ^a State capitalism, cloaking itself, where the need arises, with a mantle of "self-management", and

it is _á direct extension of capitalism. It perpetuates the capitalist

division of labour

(idealised

^{as a} requirement of the productive

force)

and with it the relations of domination

(as

evidenced by the continued

existence of the^"

State)

and the extraction of surplus labour from the direct .producers. The hegemony of bourgois ideology, here dressed up in "Marxist" trappings, thus makes it possible to link imperialism to this "socialism". It is then claimed that the dominated peoples cannot help the world to progress because their productive

forces

are

in¬

sufficiently developed and that the revolution can only come from the working class of the central powers.

This western-centred and linear vision of the world is not ex¬

clusive to the dominant parties of the working class in the centre

countries

(socialist

^and

"communist ")

^. The extreme left, groping in the

R/2749

Page 2

dark, is tempted, ^so long, as: it remains isolated, split into' myraid

factions and predominantly, intellectual, to oscillate constantly from

one extreme to another, sometimes swinging over to a social-imperialist stance, albeit unconsciously, sometimes to ^a "third world-ist" one.

The "left-wing" version of the social-imperialist argument necessarily

has an "ultra-left _appearance which in this case, as always, in fact

boils down to the same position as that of the right-wing. In its

most skilful formulations, it endeavours to deny the fact of imperialist exploitation. The debate on unequal exchange has shown haw words are used to hide the realities. Without any seeming awareness of the ridicu¬

lous and despicable nature of the argument, it is explained that the proletariat in the periphery, working on the same machines to turn out the same products

(hence

with the same

productivity),

and earning ten

or even twenty times less than the proletariat of the centre is "less- exploited".' There is a feigned of the mechanism of formal domination which make it possible to extract an absolute surplus value from the peasants who have been converted into quasi-proletarians working at home.17 Following this line of reasoning, one can no longer see how,

by rebelling against imperialism, these peoples have done more than anyone else so far to advance the cause of socialism. Their revolutions

are labelled as mere "peasant uprisings" of ^a bourgeois nature.' At the

same time, any reference to the corruption of major sections of the working class at the centre is considered as sacrilege.... and yet Lenin in his day unhesitatingly spoke, in this same connection, of

rottenness and putrefaction. Other more naive arguments continue to view the world as a 'juxtaposition of more or less advanced capitalist

societies. This, of course, makes it possible to repeat ad nauseam "the class struggle before all else.'" This commonplace becomes ^nonsense if

one does not clearly indicate the content of each class struggle, if

17. See below, "Capitalism and Ground Rent".

%

R/2123

Page 3

"i

one refuses to understand how imperialism determines the framework

and the conditions of the class struggle just as much in the centre

as in the periphery. Concrete analysis of the

contradictions at the

periphery, their order of importance,

the evolution of alliances between

imperialism and its allied classes in the third

world

is

replaced by,

catch-all slogans, sometimes with a_"Chinese" ring to

them (such

^as

"The struggle against imperialism starts with

the struggle against

local feudalists" even when no such feudalists

existi).

The development of capitalism on a world scale on an

imperialist

basis, has decisive consequences

for the destiny of socialism. The

first is the shifting of the centre of gravity from the

exploitation

of labour by capital

(and,

in the first place, by the

capital dominating

the entire system, that of the

monopolies)

from the centre

to the

periphery of the system. The absolute and relative mass

of surplus

value

(in

all its forms, absolute and relative,

apparent and hidden by

the price

structure)

extracted from labour at the periphery

has been

increasing regularly since the end of the last century.

This- simple

fact explains why the periphery is playing an

increasingly active role

in the world socialist revolution, renewing a model of the

unequal

development of societies; the development of

socialism in the back¬

ward areas of capitalism. It is accompanied by the

gradual decline of

western-centred thinking, the clearest demonstation

of

which is to'

be found in the _way in which Marxism is gradually detaching

itself

from its historical European cultural anchorage.

ï

But while socialism has been forced, because it is breaking new ground in the periphery, to ^re-pose,

in correct terms, the basic

questions of the relations between base and

superstructure, productive

forces and production relations etc. - thereby running

exactly counter

to the dominant trend at the centre, of

reducing Marxism to economism

- this new development, since it indicates the decadence

of capitalism at

R/2749

Pago 4

t

f

ff

the centre, opens the way for an evolution, both of the system itself

and of its ideological manifestations, which stems from its own logic.

Monopoly capitalism is likely to he succeeded by State capitalism.

Correspondingly, the old social imperialism, and the old social democracy

is sliding towards the new social-imperialism, and the old

social-

democratic class alliances towards the new revisionist

alliances»^"

One can understand how it is that reactions occur from time to time within the ultra-left of the West, giving rise tp

180

degree swings in direction. Thus socio-imperialist collusion is followed by an explosion of "third worldism". Third worldism is a strictly European phenomenon. It uses literary expression such as "The east

wind will defeat the west wind" or "Storm zone" to justify the im¬

possibility of any struggle for socialism in the West, instead of understanding that the necessary struggle for socialism must, in the

West too, involve an anti-imperialist struggle within Western society

itself. The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other without

any attempt to come to grips with the root of the matter: the meaning of imperialist hegemony. Third worldism is no longer in fashion, although there is always a chance of it coming back into

vogue as long as the prevailing objective situation remains un¬

changed. The fashion ocrtainly had its heyday and its "high priests".

Latin America, by virtue of its European culture, provided the best

terrain for proselytism: Spanish and Portuguese are easy to learn,

after all, and in addition, the fact that that continent is more in¬

tegrated into the capitalist system made it a. less disorienting

experience. Black Africa also offered certain possibilities, owing to

the cultural alienation of its ruling classes, but the East remained im¬

pervious to this type of exercise. But in no case vias third worldism a movement of or in the third world. The ultrar-left, finally disillusioned

over the operation, returned to the fold. The re—emergence of the

18. See Gustavo Massiah "Division international du travail et alliance de classes" in La crise de 1*impérialisme.

J

R/2749

Page 5>

permanent phenomenon of Trotskyism makes it quite clear that the

proper lessons ^were not drawn from this experience, for Trotskyism

is the twin of socials-imperialism: like the latter, it ignores the

nature of imperialism and underestimates its decisive importance

Our standpoint is completely removed, on this point, from the

false alternatives of third worldism or trotskyite ultrar-loftism or the trotskyite-leaning brand

(the

anarchist or pseudo—maoist

versions).

In our view there is only one question: in the common struggle against capitalism, which is necessarily a struggle against imperialism, how

can the specific class struggles at the centre and in the periphery

he linked together?

If this type of question is to he put in correct terms, it has

to be understood that while imperialism remains the principal eneny, social-imperialism is the principal danger. The division of the imperialist system into dominant centres and dominated peripheries

has radically changed the nature of the problems involved in the socialist revolution. In the centres, it has strengthened the trend

towards, social-imperialism, i.e. an advanced neo-capitalism correspon¬

ding to a greater centralisation of capital, iit the periphery, where

the revolutionary forces are developing, specific problems of transi¬

tion are emerging and strengthen the trend towards State capitalism.

In these circumstances, every retreat by imperialism is ambiguous and

carries within itself the seeds of the two new alternatives: socialism

or State

capitalism.^9

The forces working towards a new class mode of production arc to

be found at the very heart of the anti-imperialist movement. Today it

is no longer possible to consider the Soviet experience as simply part

of the vicissitudes of socialism. The consistency of the system, both

in terms of its economic base

(maintenance

of the division of labour

and commodity's alienation, centralised capital

management)

and of its

19» To avoid the ambiguous expression "State

capitalism", which

describes a hetcroclite set of situations, Michel

Beaud

suggests

"State collectivism", which ^we feel is better.

—— ■

—1

♦ t

t R/

2 7 49

Page 6

i:

structure

(maintenance

^{of the} State, police authoritarianism and

nationalist-social-imperialist ideological

monolithism)

call for

serious thinking, particularly since the model still exerts a strong attraction, in spite of everything, in the most advanced sectors of the working class in the West - the power of the revisionist

community parties of southern Europe hears witness to this. At the

periphery, forces which have been moving in the same direction have done so both within a "bourgeois" nationalist framework

(of

which Nasserism is the most coherent

expression)

and within that of a

popular movement

(as

demonstrated by the experience of Latin America

and, generally speaking, by the absence of Maoist leanings in that

continent).

But while there are forces which are working towards

socialism, they can hardly be said to have attained meaningful maturity outside of communist Asia.

Today, the alternatives are clearer than ever, when one observes the forces which are striving to orient the outcome of the present

crisis of the system20 in the direction _{which best serves their own}

interests. One can imagine three possible outcomes of the present

phase of the crisis; ^>■.-

In the first, the imperialist system would be maintained in its role of world domination. A new phase of imperialist capitalism would then _open up, the cards of the _game having been dealt out a- fresh and ^a new stage in the unequal international division of labour

having begun. Social-imperialism would remain limited to the U.S.S.R.

and its satellites and would become the strategic ally of imperialism proper, "peaceful coexistence" having become strategic. Socialism would also be limited and isolated to eastern Asia and at most a few other countries which would have succeeded, in the course of the crisis,

in breaking away from the system. The periphery of the imperialist

20. See below} ''It is ^a crisis of imperialism."

ï

'

\

R/2749

Page 7

system would be sub-divided into "imperialist relays" and "reserve

neo-colonies". A number of variations on this theme are possible, the

main features being either the re-establishment of a dominant imperia¬

lism

(no

doubt

American)

and the "compradorisation" of Atlantic Europe

and Japan, or, on the other hand, a certain equilibrium between

several

22

imperialist centres, each with its own special sphere of influence.

A second alternative would consist in the assumption of a dominant position by social-imperialism. This would imply that with the aggrava-

tion.of the crisis, the power scales would tip in favour of national

State capitalism in many countries which axe the weak

links

in the present system. In Southern Europe, in particular, the "historic compromise" formula would become widespread and would enable the re¬

visionist class alliance to take over from the traditional social-demo¬

cratic class alliance. A similar situation would begin to take shape

in number 'of peripheral countries too, particularly those within the

Soviet and European spheres of influence. Here, "national" state

capitalism would renlain dependent because it would not call into question

a certain type of

(unequal)

international division of labour within

the

social-imperialist system

(or systems).

In such a context, a certain type of "Eurafrica", a neo-Nasserism, becomes possible. Here, too,

there are a number of possible variants, though all displaying a balance

of _power between imperialism and social-imperialism. The most

feasible

is that in which the classical imperialist-capitalist system in the

United States would be maintained, completely dominating its own

sphere

of influence: Latin America, and the British and North European

annexes.

Only the third possible outcome, however, foresees the

socialist

system becoming the dominant one, probably in

partial competition with

the imperialist and the social-imperialist system. The spheres of

each of these imperialisms would remain relatively isolated and hence

22. See La crise de l'impérialisme, op. cit.

R/2749

Page

8.

would, not be long in declining. The countries

committed to the

socialist road would begin to be sufficiently numerous and strong

to constitute a real system. Some would be developed countries

(Southern Europe?),

other not

(many African and Asian countries).

They would of ^course, be autonomous but have

sufficiently strong

bonds of solidarity to be no longer dependent on the

imperialist and

social-imperialist centres. In this context,

national self-reliant

transition models would be reinforced by transitional complementari¬

ties, making it possible for groups

of countries and the socialist

system as a whole to adopt collective self-reliant

policies. But

it goes without saying that this prospect, the only positive one, presupposes a clear awareness of the nature of imperialism.

The _open crisis brings forcefully home to us the main features displayed by the capitalist system ever since it became Imperialisms

the transfer of the contradictions of the capitalist mode of pro¬

duction from the dominant imperialist centres to its dominated

periphery, the revolutionary and socialist potential of the

national

liberation struggle, the predominance of social-democratic ideology

within the working classes of the centre. Hence the socialist trans¬

formation of the world might well continue to take place at the periphery. This is in ^{no way} a propheoy s

simply

^an

analysis of

forces which have been operating for almost a century. Naturally,

the breaking away of the periphery from the capitalist system changes

the conditions of the class struggle at the centre. There is no

reason why one should not imagine that if the present crisis is to

worsen and give rise to ^new revolutions at the periphery, propor¬

tionally increased burden of capitalist contradictions borne by the metropolitan working classes ^may well introduce ^a radical change

in this model of the socialist transformation of the world. But

lie have not yet reached that stage.

vTZ* "5

This is the analysis formulated by the

Chinese in thé "Twenty-

five point letter"# It rests on two

fundamental arguments^: The

first is that the driving force of history today

is the anti-

imperialist struggle# This

is the meaning of the phrase: "States

want independence,

nations want liberation and peoples want revolu¬

tion." The last part of the phrase

clearly shows that the anti-

imperialist struggle must

becomes the socialist revolution. It

therefore illustrates the slogan:

"Proletarians of all countries,

oppressed peoples,

unite!" which, since the advent of imperialism,

must replace the old slogan

restricted only to the proletarians#

Por a century now,

socialism has been forcing its way ahead by

means of the amti-imperialist struggle.

This is

a new

feature. The

entire history of the

19th

century, on

the other hand, was marked

by revolutionary

working class struggles in the West, from the

English Chartists to

the Paris Commune. But the Paris Commune was

the _very la.st

manifestation of revolutionary struggle in the pro-

imperialist age#

Viewed in historical perspective, the movements

of central Europe, on

which Lenin still placed so much hope, wore

already doomed to

failure#^ Neither the events of 1968 nor the more

recent ones in Portugal and Spain

point to possible revolutionary

prospects in the

West# But

every

anti-imperialist struggle in the

third World, on

the contrary has had, and continues to have a poten¬

tial socialist dimension#

The second argument underlying

this analysis is that revision¬

ism has become the the main

obstacle to the development of socialism#

On the international plane, the

Soviet neo-impcrialist super-power is

fighting with

the classic /.merican super-power for world leadership

(in

a struggle

sharing dialectical relationship), while in terms of

ideology and class

struggle strtegy, illusions based on revisionism

can only lead to

defeat#

23# Our point of view is

shared by Catherine fyiiminal, La Politique

extérieure de la Chine, Maspero,

1975*

24# iinyone reading

Pierre Broué Révolution en illlcmagne. Minuit,

1971, will be

convinced that, contrary to the expectations of

the author,

there existed practically no possible revolutionary'

prospects in Germany

between 19^ T and 1923»