From multipolarity to the pyramid: Endless confusion in the debate on imperialism

This article was originally published in Unity & Struggle, Issue 47.

Labour Party (EMEP), Turkey

There was once the thesis of “collective imperialism”. It was put forward when “globalisation” was at full speed. According to this thesis, all imperialist states were collectively dominating other countries. War between imperialists was a thing of the past. In Germany, for example, this thesis was defended by a section of the German Communist Party (DKP), and its spokesperson was Leo Mayer. The economic basis of this thesis was the transition to “transnational” monopoly capitalism. It was argued that, as the property structure had acquired a “transnational” character, new “supranational” formations had also emerged at the state level. Thus “transnational capital” was pitting nation states against each other in order to secure more favourable conditions for itself. Thus inter-state contradictions were not absent, but the “supranational organisation of transnational capital” prevented these contradictions from assuming dangerous dimensions…

It is hard not to be tempted by the allure of superficiality, of being constantly “confirmed” by appearances. But we will not dwell on the thesis of “collective imperialism”, for this thesis has already been refuted by life. However, the richness of life leads to the emergence of new types. One of them is, for example, the advocacy of replacing the “unipolar world” with a “multipolar world”. We will first dwell on this argument, and then, using the example of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), we will try to concretise the fact that justified criticism of the wrong is no guarantee of the right answer.

How many poles do we have?

In the discussion that we will analyse, the issue is based on the metaphor of “poles”. For example, questions are being put forward such as “Is today’s capitalist world unipolar, bipolar, multipolar or non-polar? Which of these is better for the workers and peoples?”.

In discussions based on polarity, the post-World War II period is taken as the axis and a classification is generally made as follows: Bipolarity between 1945-1990, unipolarity between 1991-2008 and multipolarity since 2009. ^[1] Some, however, see the current situation as a transition from unipolarity to multipolarity rather than multipolarity. They argue that US hegemony is still extraordinarily dominant, that states like China and Russia are trying to break this unipolarity while the US is resisting it, and that the establishment of multipolarity would be beneficial for the working classes and peoples. This is what Putin and Xi Jinping are propagandising day and night!

First of all, the following question must be answered: Is unipolarity possible against the backdrop of imperialism? We know that the phenomenon of imperialism requires at least two rival imperialist states, because a monopoly cannot eliminate the competition of which it is the product. It can limit and suppress competition for a while, but it cannot destroy it. In order for this or that imperialist to eliminate all other imperialists, it must liquidate the uneven development of capitalism and the material relationships and contradictions that make this development possible. In this sense, the answer to the question is clear and unipolarity is not possible.

However, there may be a very special period in history, and as such, its transience is obvious from the beginning. For example, post-1989/1991, i.e. the first years following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the “Eastern Bloc” was such a period. In the given balance of power of that period, the US could fill the vacuum left by this collapse, and indeed it did. As an article in Foreign Affairs, the leading US foreign policy journal of those years, put it, a “unipolar moment” was possible. Its author, Charles Krauthammer, made the following assessment:

“The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The centre of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies.” However, in the very next sub-heading he feels the need to add: “No doubt, multipolarity will come in time.” ^[2]

For the purposes of our question, it does not matter whether this moment lasted until 2008 or not, as the rough classification above suggests. What is important is that multipolarity is not a desired state, but a reality of our times, and it has to be so by its very nature. So, for example, the US-China confrontation is part of the struggle for hegemony between certain imperialist states on a world scale.

But what if some of these poles are not imperialist? For example, if, as the DKP claims, there is an “anti-imperialist power” among them, or even a “power on the road to socialism”? When you identify the phenomenon of imperialism essentially with the USA and do not see Russia and China as imperialist powers, you will naturally look favourably on any development that undermines or weakens the USA and its allies. Especially if, like the DKP, you do not see Russia as an imperialist power, but as one of the countries “forced to pursue an anti-imperialist foreign policy”^[3](!), in the face of the aggression of the Western imperialists, it is easy as pie to be “hopeful”!^[4]

The analysis is as follows: On the one side, there are countries with a clear imperialist character (the USA, Germany, France, Britain, Japan and their international organisations such as NATO and the EU). On the other side: “There are capitalist countries which are often forced by imperialist aggression to adopt an anti-imperialist foreign policy. These include, among others, Brazil, South Africa, the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.” ^[5] And finally, China as “an anti-imperialist power on the road to the construction of socialism”!^[6]

When the situation is read in this way, the conclusion is not surprising: “In this context, when we speak of the need to hail the trend towards ‘multipolarity’, this has nothing to do with illusions. This is not yet a stage in which socialism is going from triumph to triumph. But it is a stage which will probably pave the way to it. It may be a stage in which the relationship of forces between imperialism and anti-imperialism is more balanced. And it is beginning to be felt quite clearly by many peoples outside Europe that this is progress.”^[7]

The nice thing is that such analyses are made in the name of not calling “everything imperialism” and having a more distinctive point of view!^[8] But the sad part is the narrow-mindedness, the superficiality in the theoretical comprehension of some circles claiming to act on behalf of the left and even Marxism-Leninism, moreover, the evaluation of the open confrontation, i.e. direct war preparations of the big imperialist states from such a blind angle, as well as the demagogic discourses of imperialists such as China and Russia in this process being undertaken, even “hailed” and made an occasion for “hope”. When this picture is taken into consideration, there is nothing strange in the circulation of wrong analyses of imperialism.

Of course, this is clear: The growth of the conflicts between imperialists and the sharpening of the contradictions between them may create new opportunities and possibilities for the working class and labouring peoples. However, for those who look at the issues not on the level of states but on the basis of classes and class struggles, what is essential is the necessity of a level of organisation and struggle that can make use of these possibilities and opportunities. If the working class is not organised and does not have a strong class movement based on that organisation, if it does not have an independent political line and a party that guarantees it, these opportunities will be exploited not by the working class and working peoples, but by the monopoly bourgeoisie in this or that country; moreover, they will turn into tools for making the workers and labourers follow the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie.

Therefore, as long as the mentioned class balance of power remains unchanged, “multipolarity” ultimately means the sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions much more than today, the emergence of new proxy wars^[9], the strengthening of political reaction and militarism, the spread of the poison of nationalism, the dragging of peoples into new disasters and so on. Are these not already the dominant tendencies? Under the given conditions of class power relations, is it not obvious that exposing all the forces and tendencies behind the preaching of “multipolarity”, revealing the inner face of their struggle and warning the peoples is the only revolutionary way? To “salute” this reality by internalising the discourse of one of the poles is nothing but an eclipse of reason caused by the loss of class perspective.

The imperialist pyramid

For the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), of course, one cannot speak of such an eclipse of reason. On the contrary, for the KKE the imperialist character of China and Russia is quite clear. For example, according to the KKE, opportunists in Greece and other countries of the world “argue that the capitalist restoration in the socialist countries is better because it abolished the Cold War and the world has therefore become multipolar, i.e. it has many centres and new powers”, “but they ‘forget’ the fact that these new ‘centres’ and ‘powers’ are based on the development of capitalist relations of production, on the dominance of monopolies in the economy, i.e. that we are facing new imperialist powers on the rise”. In the same way, the KKE does not consider the identification of imperialism with the USA to be correct. Furthermore, it criticises many right-wing opportunist and superficial approaches to the debate on imperialism. For example, it rightly criticises “the propaganda of imperialism as something different and separate from capitalism, as a political concept detached from the economic basis of capitalism”, and correctly determines that many wrong analyses of imperialism derive from this.^[10]

But, as has been pointed out, justified criticism of the wrong answer does not guarantee a correct one. And this general truth also applies to the KKE. As a matter of fact, while defining its position in these debates, the KKE came up with an interesting concept, for which it uses the “imperialist pyramid” as a metaphor. The pyramid, in a way, reflects the hierarchical structure of the dominant relations in the imperialist world system. At the top are the most powerful imperialist states; this power diminishes as one moves down the middle and bottom of the pyramid. With an emphasis that may seem strange, the KKE draws attention to the concept of the “international imperialist system”. In fact, the metaphor of the “imperialist pyramid” is used in brackets in various KKE texts as an explanation for the “international imperialist system”.

But why this emphasis on the “international imperialist system”, while it is clear and obvious in the face of the historical fact that capitalism is a system that develops through the world market? The reason is that the KKE believes that a new situation has emerged in this context. This is such a new situation that, they consider, Lenin’s metaphor of “chain” and “a handful of imperialist states” no longer reflects today’s reality.

We have to look at the issue a little more closely. According to the KKE, “Greek capitalism”, although it has “strong dependencies on the USA and the EU”, is “at the imperialist stage of its development” and “occupies an intermediate position” within the international imperialist system (i.e. in the middle of the pyramid).^[11] Yet, not only Greece, but all the capitalist countries in the pyramid are in the “imperialist stage” of their development. Their power may differ depending on which level of the pyramid they are positioned, but they are all imperialist in one way or another!

The KKE criticises the arguments that the capitalist countries, for example Greece, are “essentially occupied by Germany” and that “its regime is neo-colonial”. For such arguments exclude the monopoly bourgeoisie of that country from being the target (this is a correct criticism in one respect), and they ignore the fact that capitalism in that country is “in the imperialist stage of its development”. According to the KKE, those who fail to see these facts “identify imperialism with a very small number of countries, a handful of countries” and “consider all other countries as dependent, oppressed, colonial countries”.^[12] Yet, today, there is not only dependence, but also “interdependence”.

If asked what development has made the pyramid concept necessary, the KKE’s answer is essentially the following: “In the last decade of the 20th century the situation began to change. Two factors, mutually influencing each other, but with their own relative autonomy, stand behind this.” ^[13] One is the change in economic policies after the 1973 crisis, i.e. the abandonment of “neo-Keynesianism” (followed by privatisation, the restriction of social rights, increased capital exports, etc.). Secondly, the “opportunities offered to imperialism” by the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc (“capitalist restoration”); the launching of “a new wave of attacks by capital which met with little resistance”, and the “creation of new markets in the former socialist countries”. This development had consequences: “The unity of the leading powers vis-à-vis socialism began to unravel”, “a new round of inter-imperialist contradictions was opened in the division of new markets”, which led to wars in the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa. “At the end of the 20th century, there were three imperialist centres that emerged after the world war: … EU, USA and Japan. Today, the number of imperialist centres has increased and new forms of alliances have emerged, such as the Russia-oriented alliance, the Shanghai alliance, the BRICS, the alliance of Latin American countries ALBA, MERCOSUR, etc.”

In conclusion: “It is not only those at the top who pursue an imperialist political line, but also the countries at lower levels, even those who are dependent on the bigger powers as regional and local powers, pursue such a line. Turkey, for example, is such a power in our region, as are Israel, the Arab states and the powers that are instrumental in the seizure of new territories by monopoly capital in Africa, Asia and Latin America. As a result, we are confronted with the phenomenon of dependence and interdependence.” ^[14]

There is no need to question the obvious, namely that all capitalist countries are part of the international imperialist system. Likewise, it is also obvious that the balance of power between capitalist countries may differ and that this may change as a result of uneven development. What we criticise is the characterisation of all countries within this system as imperialist. In other words, the problem is that the difference between the capitalist countries is reduced to a quantitative difference and the qualitative difference between them in terms of their stage of development and position is neglected. And hence the relations of dependence between them are explained rather as “interdependence”. Of course, no less important is the fact that, since it is claimed that all capitalist countries are in the imperialist stage, the phenomenon of dependent countries and oppressed peoples has disappeared along with the objective contradictions that brought them into existence.

For the reasons stated and unstated, the face of the world economy has changed in the last decades, the world market shares of the Western imperialist countries, especially the USA, have declined, a country like China has become an imperialist power in the meantime, especially the “countries on the threshold” (i.e. countries that have not yet become an imperialist power, but have ceased to be the backward capitalist countries of the past), that capitalism is developing rapidly in many countries, that there has been a great increase in the export of capital from imperialist countries to capitalist countries, especially during the period of “globalisation”, that this has stimulated an extraordinary growth in the accumulation of capital in those countries, that on the other hand there is a new phase in the internationalisation of the production process and the reshaping and deepening of the division of labour in the capitalist world economy, etc… These are developments more or less known to those who follow the world economy and its relations.^[15] If this is the case, it can be said that although the bourgeoisies of these countries have imperial ambitions for their regions due to capital accumulation, these developments alone do not yet make, for example, Greece or Turkey an imperialist state/power. However, the KKE objects to this! It says it does and has done so. How?

The KKE’s argument is as follows: First of all, these countries are not colonies or semi-colonies or victims of strong capitalist states, as is commonly believed. There are monopolies in these countries, the monopoly bourgeoisie works on its own account and sometimes together with the states at the top, and exports capital to various countries of the world, especially to its own regions. For example: “Those who speak of subjugation and occupation do not see the export of capital from Greece (which is a characteristic feature of capitalism in its imperialist stage) … Capital is exported for productive investment in other countries and, of course, to European banks.”^[16]

Let us quote from another text which makes the same point: “The fact is that the accumulation and concentration of capital has for many years led to the formation and development of monopolies, which constitute the core of capitalism in its imperialist stage… It is precisely this development which forms the basis of the KKE’s analysis in developing its strategy and the tactics derived from it. The party programme approved by the 19th Party Congress underlines the following points: The Greek bourgeoisie initially benefited from the counter-revolutionary change of power in the Balkan countries and their accession to the EU. The Greek bourgeoisie has achieved a significant accumulation of capital and has recorded a strong export of capital, which through direct investments has contributed to the strengthening of Greek companies and monopolies…. This development, which expresses the further maturation of the material preconditions for socialism^[17], is not limited to Greece alone, but covers the whole of the capitalist countries. The development of monopoly capitalism in recent decades confirms this.” ^[18]

Speaking at an international meeting in Cuba in 2022, KKE Politburo member G. Marinos emphasised that the five characteristics listed by Lenin in summarising imperialism should not be limited to the countries at the top of the pyramid: “These characteristics are not peculiar only to the states at the top of the imperialist pyramid, on the contrary, they are holistic, they are peculiar to all states, more or less powerful, because the monopoly and reactionary epoch of capitalism is a whole.”

It seems that in the discussion of imperialism we come round and round to the same place: to the confusion that arises today in analysing the characteristics of imperialism identified by Lenin…

The Approach to Lenin’s five points

It was said earlier that the eclipse of reason in the DKP and some left circles does not apply to the KKE. However, it seems that the paths of the two parties somehow overlap in dealing with the characteristics of imperialism expressed by Lenin in his five points. While the DKP claims that China and Russia are not imperialist based on these points, the KKE claims that all capitalist countries are imperialist by referring to the same five points! It must be stated at the outset that what makes this overlap possible is the positivism that permeates the very soul of the modern revisionist tradition.

In this respect, the criticism of the DKP is essentially valid for the KKE. The positivist reading sees only the factual in the five points summarised by Lenin, i.e. monopoly, finance capital, export of capital, etc. However, looking at these points, what is equally important for the discussion of imperialism is the context of the factual, its impact and what it leads to. For example, what is essential and decisive is not the emergence of monopoly per se (monopoly existed even before capitalism), but the fact that the monopoly emerging at this stage of capitalism “plays a decisive role in economic life”. Or international capitalist unions may also appear in the period of free competition in this or that individual investment, but what is essential for imperialism is that these unions are able to “share the world among themselves”. Similarly, in the history of the world, certain powers have shared certain regions among themselves, but what is essential in imperialism, as analysed by Lenin, is the “division of the whole world”, its “completion” and the necessity of “redivision”.

In short, what is new with imperialism is the emergence of a relationship of hegemony, domination and power based on the leaving behind of the free competitive period of capitalism in a paradoxical manner^[19]. The ground on which this power relationship is based is, of course, the phenomenon of monopoly. However, phenomena can be understood correctly together with their formation and attributes: Monopolies, yes, but monopolies that now play a decisive role in economic life on a world scale. Financial capital, yes, but a financial capital corresponding to the financial oligarchy, etc. The main thing is not the presence or absence of monopoly, financial capital and capital export in this or that capitalist country, but their position, market share, investment and sanction capacity vis-à-vis the great imperialist powers and monopolies in terms of the relationship of domination. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether a country is imperialist or not only by looking at this or that feature of imperialism identified by Lenin; on the contrary, for this, it is necessary to look for the totality of these features in the relation of domination to which they correspond and to see whether this material relation is dominant in the economic and political life and foreign relations of that country. When this is not done, the totality of the characteristics of imperialism turns into an empty expression.

Furthermore, with this approach, there is a difference, which is not insignificant, between the imperialist capitalist countries which evolved from free competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism as a result of the internal laws of its development, and the countries which made the transition to the imperialist stage under “advanced” historical conditions when imperialism dominated the world and the division of the world by imperialist monopolies and states was already completed. The development of capitalism in the second type of countries takes place under conditions where the first ones already dominate in the economy, market shares, spheres of influence and technology. They do not develop outside the monopolies that dominate on a world scale, but alongside and often through them. Only at a certain stage of their development, i.e. from a point where they can achieve a capital accumulation, market share, military power and technological advantage/superiority that can be differentiated from the imperialist monopolies and states that dominate the world, can they show activity as an imperialist power.

In other words, they can emerge as an imperialist power to the extent that they can break through and surpass the imperialist monopolies standing against them at a certain level and field. The heart of the matter is the breaking/overcoming of the existing monopoly/monopolisation that dominates in various sectors, fields and subjects. For a capitalist country that has not reached this level of development, the fact that its company in this or that sector is a monopoly, has finance capital or exports capital does not automatically make that country imperialist. To think otherwise is to approach Lenin’s theory of imperialism with a positivist understanding, to deny the internal unity of the characteristics of imperialism as it emerged, to forget that the development of today’s capitalist countries takes place under the conditions of the age of imperialism, and therefore to abstract the speed and forms of their development from the existence and tendencies of imperialism, in short, to miss the point.

In Imperialism, Lenin, quoting the German economist Kestner on the consequences of the emergence of the cartels, after quoting him as saying that the cartels not only made high profits, but also “secured a dominating position (…) which did not exist under free competition”, went on as follows: “The words which I have italicised reveal the essence of the case which the bourgeois economists admit so reluctantly and so rarely, and which the present-day defenders of opportunism, led by Kautsky, so zealously try to evade and brush aside. Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the ‘latest phase of capitalist development’; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies.” ^[20]

That is why, for Lenin, “imperialism is monopoly capitalism” and never capitalism with monopolies! And it is for this reason that liberal economists today deny not the existence of monopolies, but their abolition of free competition! And for the same reasons, the uneven development of capitalism, resulting from competition and anarchy in capitalist production, acquires with imperialism the characteristic of a spasmodic development. The peculiarities of China’s development into an imperialist power are a striking example of what is emphasised here. ^[21]

The positivist point of view, on the other hand, ignores both the historical and the historicity of the historical. It reduces Lenin’s analysis of imperialism to a simple statement of fact: There are monopolies, there is finance capital, there is the export of capital. Therefore, many capitalist countries can get away with saying that they are in the “imperialist stage”! First of all, these features are the features of the evolution of free competitive capitalism into monopoly capitalism. In this respect, they express features that differ, contradict and differentiate from the point of comparison, that is, from free competitive capitalism. Secondly, under the conditions of world capitalism, in which imperialism, monopoly capitalism and therefore its specific features and tendencies have been around for more than a century, the emergence of the aforementioned features in this or that capitalist country is not only an understandable development, but also not contrary to the tendencies of imperialism. For these reasons, the noted capitalist development does not make these countries directly imperialist.

Why? Because the monopolies, finance capital, etc. in those countries are not formed under the conditions of a freely competitive world capitalism. On the contrary, the monopolies and finance capital in these countries are formed and try to perform under the conditions of a given world economy in which economic and financial power, world markets, spheres of influence and technological possibilities are shared by the big imperialist monopolies and states, in which a concrete and specific power relationship prevails relatively. Why is this point important? Because the monopolies, etc. in these countries are not formed in spite of the big imperialist monopolies and finance capital; on the contrary, with exceptions, they emerge and try to grow in co-operation with them, leaning on them as their small partners, sometimes even as their extensions.

In countries whose capital accumulation processes are so conditioned and disadvantaged from the beginning, is it not possible that this or that group of finance capital, this or that monopoly, even on a small scale, gain a market advantage for itself? In a historical process in which capitalism is expanding on a world scale, such exceptional possibilities and opportunities can and do arise. However, exceptions confirm the rule. In short, approaching Lenin’s five characteristics of imperialism by abstracting them from the given material relations of today’s imperialist capitalism, and in particular from power relations, is nothing but a positivist reading of the theory of imperialism.

‘Global south’ and ‘interdependence’

Undoubtedly, in the last 40 years, capitalism has developed on a world scale, especially in the period of the “globalisation” boom, i.e. when Western finance capital, intoxicated by the triumphalism of the post-1989/91 turn, left no market untouched and shifted its production processes to foreign countries, especially in those “on the brink of development”. This phenomenal spread of capitalism and capitalist relations in a relatively short period of time had many-sided effects both on these countries and on the world economy. For example, it is worth mentioning that along with this capitalist development in the non-imperialist countries, there has taken place a significant level of industrialisation and capital accumulation. Depending on the level of accumulation, the monopoly bourgeoisie in these countries, as is known, turn to the export of capital, especially to neighbouring countries, make investments concentrated in this or that sector, and face opportunities for the expansion of their market share. In the words of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of TÜSİAD, the organisation of Turkey’s big capitalists, “All over the world, supply chains are changing, production centres are shifting. There are very important opportunities for economies that can read this process correctly”. ^[22] Moreover, the emergence of a new imperialist power such as China increases the options of the monopoly bourgeoisie of these countries and they are able to gain a bargaining power that they did not have before, especially against Western monopolies.

As a matter of fact, for some time now, the “countries on the brink”, i.e. Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa (Turkey is one of these countries with its own specific contexts), have been able to make more confident decisions in the confrontation of the big powers, especially vis-à-vis the Western imperialists, and for the time being they are in a position to take advantage of the sharpening of the contradictions between the major imperialist countries. India is a concrete example of the growing options for economic and political co-operation. India is the 6th largest economy in the world. In the given circumstances, it does not feel obliged to follow this or that major imperialist power. It is already turning to various special economic, political and military co-operation with each of them.

According to the KKE, such situations are indicators of the “phenomenon of dependence and interdependence”. “Interdependence” does not fundamentally change if one of these countries is a member of a particular imperialist alliance. Greece’s membership of NATO and the EU, for example, “limits the ability of the Greek bourgeoisie to act independently”, but “interdependence” does not disappear in this case either, it only turns into “unequal relations of interdependence” (!).^[23] And again we read that “interdependence” also applies to the classical imperialist states: “Even if one or several states are at the top [of the pyramid] and are at the forefront of capitalist internationalisation and the redivision of markets, they continue to exist in a regime of mutual dependence with other countries. Germany, for example, may be the leading power in Europe, but the export of its capital and industrial products depends on the ability of European countries and China to buy them.” ^[24]

Let us skip the dependence mentioned in the last quotation. Apart from being the subject of inter-imperialist relations, this is a type of “dependence” that has existed since the world market, economy and export/import relations have existed. It is natural that at the present level of interconnection of the world economy, such mutual “dependencies” have increased. But even here, there are serious differences of possibilities among the capitalist and even imperialist states in overcoming the disadvantages arising from this kind of mutual “dependence”. When the inter-imperialist contradictions break up the forms in which they have hitherto existed, when they undergo a reformulation corresponding to the new level of intensification of contradictions (this is in a way what is happening today!) and when open confrontations come to the fore, this mutual “dependence” will also become unrecognisable. The word “de-risking”, the goal of reducing interdependence in strategic fields and sectors, which the Western imperialists are talking about these days, is an indication that the change we have mentioned has already begun as a process.

But to come to the main point, as is often the case, the secret is in the contradiction! It is precisely in the above contradictory statement (“unequal relations of interdependence”) that the point of importance for our subject and our point of objection is expressed. If there is an unequal interdependence, and if there are other factors that condition this inequality, then in this relationship one side is dependent and the other side is not. The real difference in “interdependence” is precisely this inequality. In this respect, the claim of “interdependence” here also functions to cover up the dependence of one side.

Let us not go any further; the question is where to place these developments. Obviously, the BRICS group cannot be viewed only through the prism of the “Global South”, as China and Russia are not there for charity. The BRICS engagement of these two imperialists is obvious: among other things, to strengthen their hands against rival imperialist states by backing up the countries of the “Global South” in a wide range of areas, from raw materials to geopolitics. Many examples can be given to show that competition in this field has increased in recent years. For this, it is enough to look at the composition of the international summits and conferences organised by the big imperialist states. Another striking point in this context is that China and Russia are able to successfully exploit the justified anti-colonialist reactions against the Western imperialist states in these countries and pay special attention to creating the image that they are not colonialists like the Westerners and to demonstrate this in practice through infrastructure investments or the opportunities offered within the framework of the BRICS group. ^[25]

It must be emphasised that the developments summarised above are only one side of the coin. On the other side, there is the development and positions gained by the Western imperialist countries in the last 40 years, i.e. producing with extraordinary rates of exploitation in countries where labour power is cheap, reducing the cost of reproduction of labour power in their own countries, imposing monopoly prices, obtaining a level of capital accumulation incomparable with the developing capitalist countries, renewing their monopoly position in technology, etc. As a result, monopolisation, monopoly domination, level of accumulation, excess capital and swelling in the financial sector, etc. in the classical imperialist countries have reached dimensions incomparable from those in Lenin’s time. Today, for example, the Apple monopoly alone has a financial power greater than the GDP of many countries. Therefore, while drawing attention to the capitalist development in various countries of the world and the monopolies and finance capital formed in them, one should not overlook the level of centralisation and concentration of capital in the imperialist countries, and the new possibilities this offers them.

In this way, one can see that the development in the imperialist countries has an aspect that makes the development in the “Global South” relative precisely in terms of the phenomenon of monopoly and the relations of domination rising on it. Of course, these countries have made a significant capitalist development compared to their past positions, but the relativity of this will be understood automatically when the classical imperialist countries, not their past positions, are taken as the point of comparison. In terms of criteria such as monopoly position in key and strategic sectors, especially technology, market dominance, spheres of influence, capital accumulation and reserves, military, financial and diplomatic sanctioning power, the difference between the classical imperialist countries and the capitalist countries that have developed in recent decades has not fundamentally changed. The metaphor of the “pyramid”, with its distinction between those at the top and those at the bottom, does not seem to deny this difference, but by defining all of them as imperialist, one turns this difference into a quantitative difference between qualitatively identical ones. However, in real life, in other words, in the harsh conditions of competition in world capitalism, it is experienced again and again every day that this difference is not just a quantitative difference. On the contrary, to use Hegel’s expression, quantity is also quality, that is to say, precisely this quantitative difference creates a qualitative difference in terms of imposing the relationship of domination and hegemony, which is the nature of monopoly. ^[26]

It must not be forgotten that the current picture of the power relations and distribution of the world economy, which is much more intertwined than yesterday, will not be permanent. Just as the prediction that “there will be no more wars” made on the basis of this intertwined state has come to naught, similarly, it should not be thought that the opportunities and development possibilities offered by this state today will always remain the same. Yes, the market shares of the classical imperialist countries are not increasing as before. On the contrary, they are showing signs of decline in various sectors. Their former position in the world economy is beginning to be shaken. Their capacity to limit competition and impose themselves is weakening. However, this trend cannot be considered unidirectional or permanent. On the contrary, it is sharpening the contradictions of imperialism by provoking the resistance of those who have lost ground. When the sharpening reaches a certain point, i.e. when the change in power relations accelerates and reaches a stage unacceptable for this or that imperialist centre, the general framework that makes the present course possible will be rapidly transformed and the language of force and violence will be spoken with all its destructiveness.

Then, at the latest, it will become clear who is an imperialist and who is not!

————————

1.  Goldberg, J. (2023) “Weltordnung zwischen Globalisierung und Nationalstaaten” (“The World Order between Globalization and National-States”), Z magazine, 134, 18-27, sf. 21 ↑
2. Citation by Goldberg, ibid, sf. 22 (original article: Krauthammer, Charles, “The unipolar moment”, Foreign Affairs, January 1990.) ↑
3. In his speech at the “20th Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties”, Günter Pohl, Secretary for International Affairs of the DKP, argued that Russia’s foreign policy in Syria and Ukraine/Donbas is “objectively anti-imperialist”! See. http://solidnet.org/article/20-IMCWP-Written-Contribution-of-German-CP/ ↑
4. Such hopes are not confined to Germany, but also exist in various leftist and even Marxist circles in other countries. ↑
5. From Party Chairman Patriarch Köbele’s speech at the 25th Party Congress, “In what age do we live?”. See. Köbele, P. (2023) “In welcher Epoche leben wir?”, https://www.unsere-zeit.de/in-welcher-epoche-le- ben-wir-4778511/#more-4778511 ↑
6. Köbele, ibid. ↑
7. Köbele, ibid. ↑
8.  Here, in one aspect, there is a reference to the KKE in Greece. ↑
9. The post-coup developments in Niger indicate that a new proxy war in Africa may break out at any moment. ↑
10. See. The speech by Aleka Papariga, the Party Chair: Papariga, A. (2013) “On Imperialism – The Imperialist Pyramid”, https://inter.kke.gr/de/articles/On-Imperialism-The-Imperialist-Pyramid/ ↑
11.  Papariga, ibid. The KKE programme contains almost the same definition. ↑
12. Papariga, ibid. ↑
13. Papariga, ibid. ↑
14. Papariga, ibid. ↑
15. We do not mention factors such as the impact of these developments on the classes and their struggles because they are not the subject of this article. ↑
16. Papariga, ibid. ↑
17. We do not touch upon the aspects of the analysis of what is happening in relation to the stage and the path of the revolution, for they are not the subject of this article. ↑
18. KKE (t.y.) “Der Diskurs soll mit Argumenten und nicht mit Verleumdungen durchgeführt werden” (“This Discussion should be Carried out with Arguments and not with Slander”), https://inter. kke.gr/de/articles/Der-Diskurs-soll-mit-Argumenten-und-nicht-mit-Verleumdungen-durchgefuehrt-werden/ ↑
19. Paradoxical, because a monopoly stifles competition but cannot eliminate it. ↑
20.  Lenin, Imperialism. ↑
21. For instance, it is no coincidence that the US, in its competition with China, seeks to maintain its dominance in chip technology, and to this end, pays special attention to counter-attacks and sanctions. As this footnote was being written, it was reported that US President Joe Biden was to issue a new decree banning US capital from investing in Chinese companies (companies operating in China or controlled by the Chinese government) operating in the area of certain semiconductors, quantum computing and artificial intelligence. ↑
22. Bloomberg (2022) “Turan: Üretim merkezleri kayıyor, önemli fırsatlar mevcut”, https://www.bloomberght.com/ turan-uretim-merkezleri-kayiyor-onemli-firsatlar-mevcut-2315805 ↑
23. KKE, ibid. ↑
24. Papariga, ibid. ↑
25. At the time of writing, the statement of the Russian-African summit in St. Petersburg, hosted by Russia, that the parties would jointly oppose “neo-colonialism” and work for the completion of the decolonisation process in Africa, as well as make efforts to compensate the former colonies for the losses they suffered at the hands of the colonial powers, was just one recent example of this. ↑
26. It goes without saying that our quantitative/qualitative distinction here does not mean that the imperialist countries are not capitalist. For, if imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, the difference between imperialist capitalist countries vis-à-vis ordinary capitalist countries derives precisely from their capacity, as countries which have reached this highest stage, to establish and impose monopolistic relations of domination and hegemony. The conditionality of the emergence and crystallisation of this capacity with the attainment of the highest stage of capitalism indicates that it exhibits not a quantitative but a qualitative characteristic in the above-mentioned sense. ↑