¿Vivimos en la era del “Imperio” o del Imperialismo?
Estamos vivendo na era do “império” ou do imperialismo?
"İmparatorluk" Çağında mı Yoksa Emperyalizm Çağında mı Yaşıyoruz?
Another reply to Claudio Katz on the actuality of the Marxist imperialism theory
An Essay (with 5 Tables) by Michael Pröbsting, 16 November 2024, www.thecommunists.net
Contents
Introduction
A summary of Katz’s view of the U.S.-led Empire
The “Empire” – an un-Marxist myth hovering over the contradictions between classes and states
Turning Lenin on its head: Katz’s idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy
Are the BRICS+ in a position to challenge the “Empire”?
Why have there been no wars between imperialist powers since 1945?
Did Lenin’s program of anti-imperialism only fit for revolutionary situations?
U.S.-led “Empire” and Russian Tsarism – a wrong analogy
Staying neutral or siding with reaction in important popular struggles?
The program of one-eyed anti-imperialism
Conclusions
* * * * *
Introduction
In the last few years, there has been a notable increase in the debate among Marxists about imperialism theory. As part of this discussion there is an ongoing exchange between the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz and me in the last one-and-a-half years which has been published in a number of languages. [1]
A few weeks ago, Katz, one of the most well-known progressive economists in Latin America, published another contribution to this debate in which he outlines both his analysis of contemporary imperialism as well as some strategies for resistance. Basically, his essay is divided into three parts. While the first part is a positive outline of his views, the second part is a critique of the Leninist position – mostly directed against my first and second reply to him. The third part is a polemic mainly directed against the ideas of Rolando Astarita – also an economist from Argentina who wrongly believes that national oppression and imperialist super-exploitation have lost their relevance. [2]
As this is now my third reply, I will therefore refrain as much as possible from repeating those arguments which I have already elaborated in detail in previous contributions. I shall rather focus on some selected theoretical issues which I consider as particularly important as well as on questions of anti-imperialist strategy.
A summary of Katz’s view of the U.S.-led Empire
Basically, the Argentinean economist claims that capitalism is no longer characterised by contradictions between imperialist powers but rather by domination of a single (U.S.-led) “Empire”. In contrast, I defend the analysis elaborated by Lenin according to which the capitalist world continues to be characterised by inter-imperialist rivalry which currently finds its expression to a special degree in the tensions between Western and Eastern Great Powers (U.S., Western Europe and Japan versus China and Russia).
Unsurprisingly, Katz continues to uphold his thesis of the “Empire” and, by and large, repeats his arguments outlined in previous contributions. Likewise unsurprisingly, I also continue to consider his “Empire” theory as flawed. This does not mean that I disagree with all his arguments. I agree basically with his critique of Astarita’s theses. And as a Marxist anti-imperialist, I fully share his opposition against Western imperialism and take the side of the oppressed peoples which resist. I do so not only in words but also in deeds. As a political activist, I am a regular participant and speaker at protest demonstrations against the Zionist genocide in Gaza. This year, I had two trials because of my unambiguous support for the armed resistance of the Palestinian people which ended with a guilty verdict and a suspended prison sentence of six months. [3]
My disagreements with Katz are rooted in that fact that he is only a one-sided anti-imperialist. For him, “the main enemy … is the American leadership of the imperial system” and he explicitly refuses to recognize the imperialist character of Russia and China. Consequently, he is only an anti-imperialist against the U.S. and its allies but not against other imperialist powers like Russia and China. Hence, he fails to support the struggles of oppressed peoples against these Eastern Great Powers respectively their local allies.
Katz claims that his concept is based on Lenin’s theory but takes into account “two great changes” which happened “during the second half of the 20th century.” “On one hand, a bloc of countries was formed which divorced from the capitalist market (the so-called socialist camp), and on the other hand, the transformation of classical imperialism into an imperial system was consummated.”
According to the Argentinean economist, “the imperial system modified the militarist rivalry between the main colossi of capitalism. The bloody confrontations between France and Germany or Japan and the United States were replaced by an apparatus commanded by the Pentagon that protects the powerful. The American giant acts as the center of a stratified and pyramidal mechanism, which articulates different types of relations between the first power and its partners. This configuration operates with norms of belonging, coexistence and exclusion, which define the role of each region in global geopolitics.”
While our critic recognises that Russia and China have risen as new powers, he denies not only Russia’s imperialist character but even that China has become a capitalist country.
“In the 21st century, this adaptation of the Leninist approach faces another context. The implosion of the USSR was followed by the disappearance of the so-called socialist camp and the consolidation of capitalism in Russia, which led to the new centrality of a harassing and harassed power. Moscow is harassed by NATO and implements external incursions in its radius of influence. For this reason, it acts as a non-hegemonic empire in the making. It develops its priorities in conflict with the imperial system, but with actions that guarantee by force the primacy of its interests.
China has been placed, like Russia, outside the imperial system and endures the same aggressions from the Pentagon. But unlike its Eurasian counterpart, it has not completed the capitalist restoration and has so far avoided all the misdeeds of an imperialist power. It does not send troops abroad, avoids involvement in military conflicts and maintains great geopolitical prudence. With this defensive strategy it reinforces its relations of economic domination with the bulk of the periphery.”
The “Empire” – an un-Marxist myth hovering over the contradictions between classes and states
As I said before, I do not intend to repeat all my arguments. I have shown in my previous replies to Katz as well in other works that China has already become capitalist three decades ago. Any concrete analysis of China’s economy shows that its corporations (including the state-owned enterprises) operate according to the capitalist law of value, make profit, etc. and I have provided numerous facts and statistics to proof this thesis. In contrast, Katz exercises unfortunately much restraint in providing any concrete evidence for his theses. [4]
Likewise, Katz limits his response to my analysis of Russian imperialism to state that since Moscow is in confrontation with the “Empire”, it can not be imperialist. It is merely a “non-hegemonic empire in the making. It develops its priorities in conflict with the imperial system, but with actions that guarantee by force the primacy of its interests.” For him, being imperialist and not being part of the U.S.-led “Empire” is a contradictio in adiecto. [5]
It is, by the way, a general feature of Katz’s works on imperialism that he limits his arguments mostly to the sphere of the doctrinaire generalities of structuralism – an unfortunate export hit of “Marxist” academics from French universities who view history as a process without subjects. As Lenin once noted, this theory is a “narrow objectivism (…) that describes the process in general, and not each of the antagonistic classes whose conflict makes up the process.“ [6] Consequently, structuralism – and Katz’s works bears its earmarks – get along pretty fine without facts and a concrete analysis of reality.
I shall therefore focus on dealing with the theoretical fundament of Katz’s thesis of the U.S.-led “Empire”. He claims to have elaborated Lenin’s theory of imperialism according to the changes of capitalism since World War II. However, as we will show, he is rather liquidating Lenin’s theory and turns the Marxist method on its head.
Marx and Engels started their analysis of world politics from the contradictions between the classes and nations, between states and powers. Consequently, the Bolshevik theoreticians viewed imperialism as a contradictory global system based on the antagonism between the classes, nations, and states. They assessed the political and economic strength of individual powers and their relations with each other and derived from this a characterisation of the world situation.
Hence, we consider modern capitalism as characterised by several lines of fundamental contradictions which are, of course, closely intertwined: [7]
i) the antagonism between the classes,
ii) the antagonism between oppressor and oppressed nations,
iii) the antagonism between imperialist powers and semi-colonial countries,
iv) the antagonism between states in general and imperialist powers in particular.
Katz has a completely different approach. He starts with the dogma of the U.S.-led “Empire”, without any concrete analysis, and derives his assessment of individual states and popular movements in various countries from their respective position towards such “Empire”.
Lenin considered imperialism as a system which arises from the economic fundament of capitalism and its class contradictions. Imperialism, including any “Empire” was not something detached from the economic basis. Hence, when the Bolsheviks discussed a new program in 1917-19, Lenin strongly opposed the proposal of Bukharin and Pyatakov – against whom Lenin had to polemicise repeatedly because they advocated “imperialist economism” (Katz himself refers to this in his above-mentioned reply to Rolando Astarita) – to delete without substitution that part of old program which deals with the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. [8]
Lenin once noted, in his conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic: “Thought proceeding from the concrete to the abstract – provided it is correct (…) – does not get away from the truth but comes closer to it.“ [9] But Katz does the opposite – he starts with an abstract dogma and subordinates the classes and nations, their contradictions and struggles under such dogma. This makes his whole scheme pretty un-materialistic, idealist, i.e. un-Marxist.
If Russia intervenes with its troops in other countries in order to expand its influence, to put down popular rebellions or to keep an allied dictatorship in power (e.g. Chechnya, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Syria, Libya, Mali, etc.), it is not imperialist because … Moscow is not part of the U.S.-led “Empire”.
If China develops economic and financial relationships with semi-colonial countries which result in extracting surplus-value from local workers and peasants, it does not constitute imperialist super-exploitation because … Beijing is not part of the U.S.-led “Empire”.
Hence, Katz has a very opposing view to Lenin. He starts with the top of the political superstructure – the supposed U.S.-led “Empire” – and subordinates all struggles between classes and states to this single feature. It is not the relationship between the classes and nations which counts for Katz but rather the relationship of the classes and nations around the globe to the U.S.-led “Empire”. As a result, he creates an un-Marxist myth which is hovering over the contradictions between classes and states.
By this, Katz replaces Lenin’s concept of imperialism as a political-economic analysis with a purely political and one-sided theory which is consequently without any materialist dialectic.
Turning Lenin on its head: Katz’s idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy
It is well known that the Marxist theory of imperialism – as it was elaborated by Lenin, Bukharin, Luxemburg, and Hilferding in the early 20th century – was based on the economic analysis of capitalism. They identified monopolization – the process of the formation of monopolies in the industrial and financial sector – as the economic fundament of imperialism. Lenin stressed this point repeatedly: “Here we have what is most essential in the theoretical appraisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism, namely, that capitalism becomes monopoly capitalism.“ [10]
The formation of imperialist powers – some long-time Great Powers (like Britain, France or Russia), other newly emerging (e.g. Germany, U.S., Japan) – inevitably took place in relation to this economic process of monopolization. Hence, „…an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony…“ [11]
The leader of the Bolshevik party famously summarised the characteristics of the imperialistic epoch as follows: „We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts – the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks – three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves – until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed.“ [12]
Katz ignores the economic process of monopolization in the world economy. The fact that China has as many corporations and billionaires as the U.S., that Russia’s economy is dominated by domestic monopolies which also export capital to a number of other countries – all this is irrelevant for our critic.
How does he justify such ignoring? By reformulating the Marxist theory of imperialism. He eliminates the economy from his analysis of imperialism and limits it to aggressive and militarist foreign policy. As we did already point out in our previous replies, this is a key aspect of Katz’s theory of imperialism which is also pretty evident in his latest essay.
Such he writes for example: “The place of these powers (China and Russia, Ed.) in the world economy does not clarify their role as an empire. This role is elucidated by evaluating their foreign policy, their foreign intervention and their geopolitical-military actions on the global stage. This record allows us to update Lenin's view, avoiding the repetition of his diagnoses, in a radically different context from that prevailing at the beginning of the last century.”
Likewise, while he is forced to admit China’s economic strength on the world market, he claims that this does not make it an imperialist power. “But this view ignores the basic difference that distinguishes an imperial enemy from an economic dominator. The United States exercises oppression in all areas, while its rival profits from the benefits of unequal exchange, the transfer of value and the capture of rents. These two adversities are not equivalent for Latin America because the first makes any sovereign action impossible and the second obstructs development. They operate, therefore, as limitations of different magnitude.”
So, for Katz, an “economic dominator” (like China) which exploits other countries, is not necessarily an imperialist power. Such a view is consistent with Katz divorce of politics and economy but completely inconsistent with any claim to adhere to the Marxist theory of imperialism! Lenin strongly denounced such an approach which was characteristic for Katz’s ideological progenitor, Karl Kautsky.
”Advancing this definition of imperialism brings us into complete contradiction to K. Kautsky, who refuses to regard imperialism as a “phase of capitalism” and defines it as a policy “preferred” by finance capital, a tendency of “industrial” countries to annex “agrarian” countries. Kautsky’s definition is thoroughly false from the theoretical standpoint. What distinguishes imperialism is the rule not of industrial capital, but of finance capital, the striving to annex not agrarian countries, particularly, but every kind of country. Kautsky divorces imperialist politics from imperialist economics, he divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics in order to pave the way for his vulgar bourgeois reformism, such as “disarmament”, “ultra-imperialism” and similar nonsense. The whole purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to obscure the most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the theory of “unity” with the apologists of imperialism, the outright social-chauvinists and opportunists.“ [13]
Katz considers China not as imperialist because it does not wage wars in other countries (yet). But military aggression is only one form of imperialist policy, “peaceful” penetration and economic dependency is another – one which even plays a much larger role. In fact, military intervention has been rather the exception in imperialist foreign policy in the past decades and took place only in a few countries. In contrast, economic penetration and dependency by imperialist monopolies takes place every single day. This is even more the case since one of the important changes in the imperialist system has been the process of de-colonialisation which transformed nearly all colonies (Africa, large parts of Asia, Eastern Europe) into capitalist semi-colonies. With the disappearance of colonies, the need for regular military interventions and permanent deployment of troops to upheld occupation also diminished. For all these reasons, China’s methods of “indirect”, economic subjugation of peoples in the South via financial means is a typical instrument for 21st century imperialism.
Lenin description of this process sounds pretty actual when it comes to the relationship between Western powers as well as China with semi-colonial countries. ”Economically, imperialism is monopoly capitalism. To acquire full monopoly, all competition must be eliminated, and not only on the home market (of the given state), but also on foreign markets, in the whole world. Is it economically possible, “in the era of finance capital”, to eliminate competition even in a foreign state? Certainly it is. It is done through a rival’s financial dependence and acquisition of his sources of raw materials and eventually of all his enterprises. “ [14]
Basically, Katz advocates an idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy, leaving out the economy – the material basis of capitalism. Hence, it is only consistent with such a reinterpretation of imperialism that Katz does not consider imperialism as a specific stage of capitalist development – its age of monopolization – but rather as aggressive foreign policy which has always existed in capitalism. In his view “imperialism (…) has been present since the beginning of capitalism.“
Are the BRICS+ in a position to challenge the “Empire”?
We did show in previous replies to Katz, that the idea of a U.S.-led “Empire” which would dominate the world does not correspond to the reality of capitalism in the 21st century. There is no need to reproduce our arguments and figures again. However, it makes sense to briefly deal with developments since I published my last reply to the Argentinean economist.
In the last two years, there have been not only two big wars – in Gaza and Ukraine – but also a substantial expansion of BRICS, the alliance led by China and Russia. At the beginning of 2024, four states – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and United Arab Emirates – formally joined the five original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). One country, Saudi Arabia, has been invited to join but has still not decided on this. And in October 2024, 13 other states became so-called “partner countries” (Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Türkiye, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam).
Sure, this alliance is not a homogenous and centralized bloc. Several states have conflicts among each other, some have more and other less close relations with Western powers. However, Modi and Putin are certainly not mistaken in saying that BRICS “is not an anti-western group, it is a non-western group." However, despite such formal claims, the Eastern-dominated alliance is objectively the by far strongest political, economic and military rival for the Western powers and is seen by them as such. [15]
And indeed, they have reasons to fear the BRICS+ alliance. Most importantly, China has become the largest or second largest power in terms of economic output, industrial production, and trade. Russia and China are the second and third-largest military powers. And albeit the alliance is not a monolithic bloc, the very fact that dozens of countries have shown interest in joining it demonstrates the two Eastern powers are massively expanding their spheres of influence.
There is a significant difference in calculating the size of the two blocks, depending on the measures of calculation. Nominal GDP is measured in US-Dollar with market-rate currency conversion, while the PPP-adjusted GDP uses international dollars (using the U.S. as a base country for calculations) which better account for cost of living and inflation. In nominal terms, the G7 – the Western imperialist alliance – has still a larger economic output while calculated in PPP terms, BRICS+ has already surpassed the Western powers. Note that the figures in both Tables below are for the original 5 member states of BRICS+, i.e. before the alliances have expanded by 4 additional member states and 13 partner countries. (See Table 1)
Table 1. Nominal GDP and PPP GDP of G7 and BRICS (original 5 States) in trillion US-Dollar, 2023 [16]
G7 BRICS
Nominal GDP PPP GDP Nominal GDP PPP GDP
U.S. 26.9 26.9 China 19.4 33.0
Japan 4.4 6.5 India 3.7 13.0
Germany 4.3 5.6 Brazil 2.1 4.0
UK 3.2 3.9 Russia 2.1 5.0
France 2.9 3.9 South Africa 0.4 1.0
Italy 2.2 3.2
Canada 2.1 2.4
G7 Total 46.0 52.4 BRICS Total 27.7 56.0
In any case, there is no doubt that the BRICS states have much higher growth rates and are in process of catching up or even surpassing the “old” imperialists. (See Table 2)
Table 2. Share of G7 and BRICS (original 5 States) in Global GDP, 1992-2022 (PPP-adjusted) [17]
1992 2002 2012 2022
BRICS 16.45% 19.34% 28.28% 31.67%
G7 45.80% 42.34% 32.82% 30.31%
BRICS growing clout is evident by various other indicators. When it expanded in 2023 to nine member states, it had a combined population of about 3.5 billion, or 45% of the world’s people. As for energy sources, the BRICS+ members own 47% of the world's oil reserves and 50% of its natural gas reserves. [18] As of 2024, the BRICS, along with their new members, control approximately 72% of the world's rare earth metal reserves. [19]
It is not without interest to make a historical comparison to the relation of forces between the blocs of imperialist powers at the onset of World War I and II. In the three tables below we can see that the two rivalling alliances were not equal in terms of economic output but that the Western-led imperialist bloc were clearly stronger. Before the beginning of World War I, the Entente powers had a combined output of more than four times than that of the Germany-led bloc. (See Table 3). We are aware that the list of countries in this table is not complete as Japan, which briefly joined the Entente, as well as the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany, are missing. However, bother were rather small powers in terms of economic output so they would not alter significantly the total relation of forces between the blocs.
Table 3. GDP of Imperialist Powers, 1913 (million 1990 international $) [20]
Entente Central Powers
UK 224,618 Germany 237,332
France 144,489 Austria 23,451
USA 517,383
Russia 232,351
Italy 95,487
Total 1,214,338 260,783
(696,955 without the U.S.
which joined the war
only in April 1917)
We see a similar picture before the beginning of World War II. The Western powers (which were joined by the USSR in 1941) were two or three times as strong as the Axis Powers. (See Table 4 and 5)
Table 4. Imperialist Powers’ Share of World Manufacturing Output in 1938 [21]
Axis Powers Western Powers
Germany 12.7% Britain 10.7%
Italy 2.8% France 4.4%
United States 31.4%
Total 15.5% 46.5%
Table 5. Gross National Product of Major Powers Participating in WWII in 1939 [22]
(US-Dollars, values of constant price on a 1990 basis)
Axis Powers Allies
Germany 384 US 869
Japan 165 UK 287
Austria 27 France 199
Italy 151 USSR 366
Total of the Axis Powers 727 Total of the Allies 1,721 (1,355 without USSR)
This overview of the relation of forces between the U.S.-led bloc and the China/Russia-led bloc demonstrates that the so-called “Empire” is clearly no longer in a position to dominate the world. True, its military – in terms of foreign basis and expenditures – is much larger than that of its rivals. However, reality has shown in the past two decades that America’s decline takes place not only in economic but also in political-military terms. Think about Washington’s defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about its failure to seriously damage Russia’s economy despite the Western unprecedented regime of sanctions after Putin attacked Ukraine in February 2022. Think about the embarrassing isolation of the U.S. and Israel in the UN General Assembly on the issue of Palestine.
The fact that China and Russia have succeeded to create an alliance, which encompasses half of humanity and a significant part of the world economy, demonstrates that the U.S.-led “Empire” is far away from imposing its will on the world.
Furthermore, as our historical analogies with the situations before World War I and II show, it is absolutely wrong to conclude from the superiority of one imperialist camp against its rivals would mean that the latter are not be imperialist. I am sure, Claudio Katz will agree that the Germany-led camp was imperialist both in World War I as well as II.
Why have there been no wars between imperialist powers since 1945?
Katz challenges my critique of his Empire-thesis by asking why the U.S.-led bloc with Western Europe and Japan existed for so long without significant inner tensions. He writes that I would “ignore the monumental changes that separate the classic era of imperialism from the postwar period and the 21st century. The first period was marked by wars between empires and in the second such conflagrations have not taken place. (…) The current system with total primacy of the United States over Europe and Japan has eliminated the possibility of wars between these components of the triad. This fact introduces a qualitative shift in the dynamics of imperialism.“
Hence, he elaborates, “there is intense competition between German and Japanese companies and their American counterparts, but the Pentagon keeps its sights set on Moscow or Beijing and does not worry about Berlin or Tokyo. (…) What explains why this German-Japanese development – much more intense than Russia and longer-standing than China – did not lead to military tensions with the first power (the U.S., Ed), is the integration of the two allies of the West in NATO, that is, their membership in the imperial system.”
In fact, the long-lasting collaboration between the U.S. and its Western allies is not based on a supposed qualitative transformation of imperialism but on concrete and temporary historical conditions. The hegemonic role of the U.S. within the capitalist world was the result of the outcome of World War II where other imperialist powers were either defeated (Germany and Japan) or became allies in a subordinated position (Britain and France). Washington’s domination was reinforced by the fact that all imperialist states had no alternative but to accept U.S. leadership in order to wage their Cold War against the Stalinist states. Hence, the inter-imperialist rivalry was overdetermined by another contradiction – that between Western powers and the USSR-led camp of Stalinist states.
As an aside, I would like to note that the term “so-called socialist camp” only strengthens the impression that Claudio Katz has a soft spot for Russian respectively Chinese imperialism. Especially when taking such a position as he does, it is more than necessary to at least criticize sharply and repeatedly the Stalinist misconceptions of socialism (let’s not forget that China is still ruled by a self-proclaimed “Communist Party”). Marxists should be clear in their intention and terminology. First, it was not “socialist” as these were degenerated post-capitalist workers states dominated by the dictatorship of Stalinist bureaucracies. [23] Second, these states were not united, particularly after China under Mao Tse-tung aligned itself with U.S. imperialism against the USSR after Nixon’s famous visit in 1972. From that time on, “socialist” China had effectively joined the imperialist camp against “socialist” USSR.
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. became the absolute hegemon of the world for a short period until its domination declined in the 2000s. The Great Recession in 2008 was a turning point because from then on not only Russia but also China emerged as new imperialist powers. Since then, a new inter-imperialist rivalry overdetermined, so to say, the old rivalry between the Western powers.
Katz claims that the Pentagon simply controls the “Empire” and subjugates other Western Powers. I argue that because of specific historic conditions, these Western Powers pursued their respective imperialist interests by aligning themselves with Washington. But this did not result in the creation of an integrated “Empire” under the single command of the Pentagon. It rather resulted in the creation of an alliance of imperialist states, among which the U.S. is the strongest. This alliance is currently held together by the rise of the imperialist rivals of the East.
However, this does not mean that the tensions between the Western imperialist powers would have disappeared (into the creation of a monolithic U.S.-led Empire). We did already see open tensions during the first term of U.S. President Trump and we will most likely see more of these during his incoming second term. Will the result in open war between these Western powers? Certainly not in the foreseeable future. However, it is far from guaranteed that the European Union will remain closely allied with Washington. Likewise, it is open if it will continue to exist in its present composition or if it will rather split with one camp staying with the U.S. and another taking an independent position.
However, all this is not decisive for our discussion. Our main argument against Katz’s thesis of an U.S.-led Empire is that the world situation is marked by the existence of several imperialist Great Powers of which some are in accelerating rivalry against each other and others are in alliance. This has been the case since the end of the first decade of the 21st century and it will stay like this for the coming period. Furthermore, given the decline of the capitalist system as a whole, the contradictions between these imperialist powers will inevitably accelerate and put the danger of World War III on the agenda. [24]
Did Lenin’s program of anti-imperialism only fit for revolutionary situations?
Katz claims that Lenin’s policy of defeatism against all imperialist powers would have been a program which applied only for revolutionary situations. Since such a situation does not exist today, Lenin’s anti-imperialist program would no longer apply. “Lenin based his anti-imperialist strategy on three diagnoses: terminal crisis of capitalism, intense generalization of wars between the main powers and imminence of the socialist revolution. All the orientations that he proposed of rejection of the war conflagration through defeatism and the creation of anti-imperialist fronts in the periphery, were based on that evaluation.”
“Our critics (….) repeat the Bolshevik leader's revolutionary strategy of defeatism, which emphasized the shared guilt of all the powers in the war. But they omit that this characterization was framed in the context of imminent socialist revolution, absent today.”
But Lenin’s program was not based on a conjunctural assessment which would not apply in a non-revolutionary situation. It was rather rooted in the character of the whole epoch of capitalism in its last stage. He differentiated between the epochs of the 19th century – the epoch of rising capitalism – and the epoch of monopoly capitalism which had opened at the beginning of the 20th century. In the former epochs it was legitimate for socialists to side with one power against another, but this was no longer the case for the imperialist epoch.
In a polemic against A. Potresov, a reformist Menshevik in Russia, who justified the defence of the imperialist fatherland by referring to Marx taking the side of a European power against another in 19th-century wars, Lenin emphasised the fundamental difference between the epoch of rising capitalism and the epoch of imperialism.
”In 1859, it was not imperialism that comprised the objective content of the historical process in continental Europe, but national-bourgeois movements for liberation. The mainspring was the movement of the bourgeoisie against the feudal and absolutist forces. Fifty-five years later, when the place of the old and reactionary feudal lords has been taken by the not unsimilar finance capital tycoons of the decrepit bourgeoisie, the knowledgeable Potresov is out to appraise international conflicts from the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, not of the new class. (…) Let us suppose that two countries are at war in the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which country should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day democracy? Obviously, to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its development more speedy, and undermine feudalism the more decisively. Let us further suppose that the determining feature of the objective historical situation has changed, and that the place of capital striving for national liberation has been taken by international, reactionary and imperialist finance capital. The former country, let us say, possesses three-fourths of Africa, whereas the latter possesses one-fourth. A repartition of Africa is the objective content of their war. To which side should we wish success? It would be absurd to state the problem in its previous form, since we do not possess the old criteria of appraisal: there is neither a bourgeois liberation movement running into decades, nor a long process of the decay of feudalism. It is not the business of present-day democracy either to help the former country to assert its “right” to three-fourths of Africa, or to help the latter country (even if it is developing economically more rapidly than the former) to take over those three-fourths.“ [25]
Hence, we see that the Marxists based their intransigent opposition against all Great Powers not on the hope of an “imminent socialist revolution” but on their fundamental assessment of the epoch of imperialism in which the bourgeoisie in all imperialist states had assumed a reactionary character.
U.S.-led “Empire” and Russian Tsarism – a wrong analogy
Katz’s misinterpretation of Lenin’s reasoning for his defeatist program goes hand in hand with his repeated reference to Marx’s strategy in the 1848 revolution and thereafter in which he identified Tsarist Russia – the strongest remaining bastion of feudalism – as the main enemy. Such Katz writes for example: “The American colossus currently occupies a place similar to that of old Tsarist Russia, as a political bastion of world reaction.”
“Our approach precisely highlights the current similarities with the 19th century due to the centrality of the main enemy. The place that Russia had in Marx's time is currently occupied by the United States. Critics accept the validity of this location two centuries ago, but do not endorse it for the current context. They consider that Lenin's theses erected an irreversible border between both stages.”
I did already show in my second reply that such an analogy is fundamentally wrong. (See chapter “Political consequences: Back to Marx’s strategy of the 19th century of the “main enemy”?”) However, since Katz repeats this analogy several times in his new essay, I feel obliged to add some arguments.
Katz’s analogy is inappropriate not only because we don’t live in a U.S.-dominated unipolar world and not only because it is rather the dictatorships of Putin and Xi which resemble the Tsarist autocracy in Russia more than the U.S. This analogy is also mistaken because it is deeply unhistoric as it is based on turning back the wheels of time. It applies an approach to states and wars which was justified in the epoch of transition of feudalism to capitalism in the 19th century to the current epoch of decaying capitalism.
As we did already show in the previous chapter, the Bolsheviks rejected such an approach which violates the laws of historic materialism. In the epoch of transition from feudalism to capitalism, i.e. of rising capitalism, the bourgeoisie could play a progressive role in the struggle against the old order of the Middle Ages. In the current epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, this is no longer the case. In this period, the bourgeoisie of imperialist powers plays a reactionary role without exception.
In fact, Katz’s reference to the foreign policy of Marx and Engels in the 19th century and their focus on the struggle against Russia was also used by social-chauvinists in various countries during World War I – from Kautsky, Cunov to Plekhanov and Axelrod – in order to justify their defence of the imperialist fatherland.
Lenin strongly rejected such an analogy because it would apply the program of a bygone era to wars in the imperialist epoch. He stressed that socialists have to oppose all Great Powers, irrespective if they are stronger or weaker, older or younger.
„Let us suppose that two countries are at war in the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which country should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day democracy? (As this article was written for a legal publication in Tsarist Russia, the Bolsheviks often used the synonym “present-day democracy” for “socialist proletariat”, Ed.) Obviously, to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its development more speedy, and undermine feudalism the more decisively. Let us further suppose that the determining feature of the objective historical situation has changed, and that the place of capital striving for national liberation has been taken by international, reactionary and imperialist finance capital. The former country, let us say, possesses three-fourths of Africa, whereas the latter possesses one-fourth. A repartition of Africa is the objective content of their war. To which side should we wish success? It would be absurd to state the problem in its previous form, since we do not possess the old criteria of appraisal: there is neither a bourgeois liberation movement running into decades, nor a long process of the decay of feudalism. It is not the business of present-day democracy either to help the former country to assert its “right” to three-fourths of Africa, or to help the latter country (even if it is developing economically more rapidly than the former) to take over those three-fourths.“ [26]
Katz wants to transmit unhistorical the legitimate tactics of the struggle against feudalism – of which Tsarist Russia constituted the most powerful force in the time of Marx and Engels – to the imperialist epoch in which all Great Powers play a reactionary role.
“… the general feature of the epoch, however, was the progressiveness of the bourgeoisie, i.e., its unresolved and uncompleted struggle against feudalism. It was perfectly natural for the elements of present-day democracy, and for Marx as their representative, to have been guided at the time by the unquestionable principle of support for the progressive bourgeoisie (i.e., capable of waging a struggle) against feudalism, and for them to be dealing with the problem as to “the success of which side”, i.e., of which bourgeoisie, was more desirable.“ [27]
Gregory Zinoviev, Lenin’s closest collaborator for a long time, pushed the same argument in his book “The War and the Crisis in Socialism” which was written in 1915/16: “In the epoch when the question of the conquest of power by the bourgeoisie, the victory of the bourgeoisie over the remnants of feudalism, was on the agenda, Marx and Engels during the wars advocated the victory of this or that bourgeoisie, depending on which victory was most favorable for democracy and socialism.“ [28]
We can formulate our methodological objection against Katz also from a different angle: the Argentinean economist advocates a model (fighting only against a single “main enemy” among the Great Powers) which was legitimate in an epoch of rapidly growing productive forces and in which the decisive task was to break down the narrow barriers of feudalism and to fight against forces which could endanger such historic progress. But such a model is inapplicable for an epoch of stagnating productive forces, climate catastrophe, economic depression and war danger. In such an epoch all imperialist bourgeoisies can only be reactionary and obstacles for the progress of humanity.
„The present war is imperialist in character. This war is the outcome of conditions in an epoch in which capitalism has reached the highest stage in its development; in which the greatest significance attaches, not only to the export of commodities, but also to the export of capital; an epoch in which the cartelisation of production and the internationalization of economic life have assumed impressive proportions, colonial policies have brought about the almost complete partition of the globe, world capitalism’s productive forces have outgrown the limited boundaries of national and state divisions, and the objective conditions are perfectly ripe for socialism to be achieved.“ [29]
For all these reasons, Katz’s attempt to turn back the wheels of time and to advocate tactics in the struggle against feudalism for the epoch of struggle against imperialism are a gross violation of historical materialism. Politically, it represents a distortion of Marxism into an ideology of collaboration with Chinese and Russian imperialism.
Staying neutral or siding with reaction in important popular struggles?
Our differences with Claudio Katz are not limited to the sphere of analysis and theory as they have profound consequences for socialist strategy and practical intervention in the class struggle. Since Katz knows only one enemy – the U.S.-led “Empire” – he characterises wars of national defence and popular rebellions by only one criterion: are they directed against Washington and its allies or against the rivals of the “Empire”. While he advocates support for the former type of struggles, he refrains from supporting the latter or even sharply denounces these.
This is evident from various statements in his essay. While he does not endorse Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, he certainly does not side with the people under attack. He does not defend Ukraine because he views it merely as a proxy of the U.S.-led “Empire”. “The United States was also the promotor of the war in Ukraine. It tried to add Kyiv to the NATO missile network surrounding Russia, in order to affect its rival's defensive structure. With this objective, it promoted the Maidan revolt, encouraged nationalism against Moscow and supported the mini-war in Donbass. It sought to trap its adversary in a conflict aimed at imposing the rearmament agenda on Europe.” It seems that Katz does not know about the long-time national oppression of Ukraine by Great Russian imperialism, about Russian monopolies, about Ukraine’s desire for independence, etc. All this is foreign to Katz because he does not recognise “smaller people” – we put this in inverted comma since Ukraine’s population has more or less the same size as Argentina’s – as political subjects. For him, they can only be proxies of Great Powers. This is even more the case if such “smaller people” fight against oppression by rivals of the U.S.-led “Empire”.
“The Pentagon is the main promoter, responsible for and cause of the greatest tragedies of recent decades. The United States carried out a harrowing intervention in the Greater Middle East to control oil, crush rebellions and subdue rivals. From there, it commanded the bloodshed of the Arab Spring, facilitated jihadist terrorism and perpetrated the demolition of four states (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria). (…) The destruction of Yugoslavia, the fracture of African countries and the appearance of mini-States controlled by NATO illustrate this regression.”
As a matter of fact, the Great Arab Revolution was directed against all kind of capitalist dictatorships – those aligned against the U.S. (e.g. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen) as well as those aligned with Russia and China (e.g. Libya and Syria). This was first and foremost a spontaneous democratic revolution which was often slaughtered by reactionary tyrannies with support from U.S. as well as Russian imperialism (e.g. Egypt and Bahrain resp. Syria). The U.S. intervened militarily much shorter and more limited in Libya in 2011 than Russia did in Syria since 2015. And Washington’s intervention in East Syria to defeat Daesh did not contribute in any way to the liberation struggle against Assad.
As we did already show in our previous reply, the formulation “destruction of Yugoslavia” reflects Katz’s opposition against the struggle of the non-Serbian people for national self-determination (which is why he shamefully characterized the “ghostly (!) republic of Kosova” as an “old Serbian province”!) And I assume that his protest against the “fracture of African countries” reflects that he denies that there exists national and ethnical oppression in various states on the Black continent against which people rise up. We can not refrain from commenting that such adaption to chauvinism against popular liberation struggles usually reflects an ideological mindset which is typical for supporters of pro-Russian social-imperialism.
The program of one-eyed anti-imperialism
Essentially, Katz advocates a program which we can not but characterize as one-eyed anti-imperialism. Since there is only one “main enemy” – the U.S.-led “Empire” – all other Great Powers are at least lesser evils. We are fully aware that Katz is critical of Putin’s foreign policy. And, likewise, he recognises that China’s foreign investments and loans aim not for the betterment of humanity but for higher profits for its monopolies. But since Russia is supposedly forced to defend itself against NATO expansion and “China avoids imperial arrogance”, these Eastern powers are the lesser evil.
Hence, Katz wants to focus the anti-imperialist struggle only against the U.S.-led “Empire”. He criticises the program which we advocate for an “erroneous identification of anti-imperialism with a policy of indiscriminate opposition to all the great powers. This view leads to simplified reactions, ignoring that current imperialism forms a system of aggression under the command of Washington. Only the recording of this fact allows us to conceive an anti-imperialist strategy adapted to the 21st century.” It is therefore only logical that Katz prioritises the struggle against one imperialist camp while coquetting with a tactical alliance with the other imperialist camp.
Consequently, Katz advocates a “triple strategy for Latin America” which he summarises in the formula: “resistance to the United States, renegotiation with China and the emergence of regional unity.” Naturally, we are fully aware that countries striving for independence and equality have to pursue a Realpolitik since we don’t believe in the Stalinists utopia of building socialism in one country. Hence, opening trade relations and asking for a loan might be a necessary step for such countries.
However, a victorious workers and peasant government in a country of the Global South will not limit itself to open such diplomatic and economic relations with other countries (including Great Powers). It will rather focus on expanding the revolutionary process since the only assurance for the workers and peasant power is to strengthen the struggles of its class brothers and sisters to overthrow the ruling class in their countries.
In addition, yes, it is absolutely legitimate for a country striving for independence to enter diplomatic and economic relations with other countries (including Great Powers). But why only “renegotiate with China”? Is it not a fact that such countries can equally be obliged to do business with U.S. imperialism? Look at Venezuela which has sold its oil to Washington even in the high days of Chavez’ Bolivarianism.
It rather seems to us that Katz advocacy of a strategy for “national sovereignty” is a program for Latin American countries to join BRICS and to side with Chinese and Russian imperialism against the U.S. This is also the meaning of his support for the Putinist concept of “multipolarity”. True, he wants to combine it with a “radical-revolutionary program”. But first, he wants to strengthen the China/Russia-led BRICS because “multipolarity” would “weaken imperialist domination while forging the pillars of a post-capitalist future.”
Effectively, this is a version of the reformist strategy of transformation in stages. In the domestic terrain, this usually means to get a majority at parliamentary elections and then to gradually begin the transformation to socialism. In the field of foreign policy, it means for Katz to “support the creation of a multipolar world that paves the way for the transition to socialism.” In fact, a “multipolar world“ only means a world dominated by several Great Powers enmeshed in inter-imperialist rivalry. [30]
Objectively, this is a program of one-eyed anti-imperialism and has nothing to do with authentic socialism. In domestic policy it results in defending bourgeois property relations (as this has been the case e.g. in Venezuela in the past quarter of a century) and in foreign policy it results in support for Chinese and Russian imperialism.
But, as Lenin explained, the task of socialists is not to support one Great Power against another – irrespective if it is bigger or smaller, stronger or weaker – but to fight against all imperialists! “From the standpoint of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to existence), Germany might be considered absolutely in the right as against Britain and France, for she has been “done out” of colonies, her enemies are oppressing an immeasurably far larger number of nations than she is, and the Slavs that are being oppressed by her ally, Austria, undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those of tsarist Russia, that veritable “prison of nations”. Germany, however, is fighting, not for the liberation of nations, but for their oppression. It is not the business of socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to plunder the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow all of them.” [31]
Conclusions
1. We reject Katz’s theory of a U.S.-led “Empire” which would dominate the world. In fact, new imperialist powers – most importantly China and Russia – have emerged which did put an end to Washington’s absolute hegemony in the period after 1991. These new powers have accumulated substantial economic and military strength and pursue their own imperialist interests independent and in rivalry to the U.S.
2. Katz’s theory is mistaken as it subordinates the contradictions between classes, nations and states to only one contradiction – the U.S.-led “Empire” against the rest of the world. In reality, Marxists have to defend the interests of the popular masses and semi-colonial countries of the south against all capitalist classes and against all Great Powers – against those in the West (U.S., Western Europe, Japan) as well as those in the East (China and Russia).
3. In order to justify his one-eyed anti-imperialism – directed only against the U.S. but not against China and Russia – Katz’s turn’s Lenin’s theory of imperialism on its head and transforms it into an idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy. In fact, imperialism is the final epoch of capitalism in which a small group of monopolies and Great Powers try to expand their political and economic spheres of influence against the popular masses and in rivalry with each other.
4. Katz’s argues that imperialism as a system of rivalling Great Powers had ended by 1945 and was replaced by a U.S.-led “Empire” in which Washington dominates other Western states. As a result, the inter-imperialist contradictions have been removed. This is a mistaken interpretation of the historical development since World War II. In fact, the inter-imperialist contradictions were subordinated to the overriding contradiction between the imperialist powers and the degenerated workers states, the bloc led by the USSR. After the collapse of Stalinism in 1991, the U.S. became the absolute hegemon. However, this brief period ended with the Great Recession in 2008 as new imperialist powers in the East did emerge – China and Russia. Currently, the main inter-imperialist contradictions are between the Western and the Eastern bloc. However, this does not mean that these are homogenous alliances, and it is quite possible that frictions within both blocks could emerge in the coming period.
5. We consider Katz’s view that Lenin’s program of defeatism would apply only to revolutionary situations as wrong. In fact, the Bolshevik leader considered this program as appropriate for the struggle against all Great Powers in the whole epoch of imperialism, not only in specific situations.
6. Likewise, Katz’s analogy of the U.S.-led “Empire” with Tsarist Russia in the 19th century and his consequential advocacy of applying Marx’s tactic (with the U.S.-led “Empire” as the main enemy instead of Tsarist Russia) is inappropriate. This is the case not only because we don’t live in a U.S.-dominated unipolar world and not only because it is rather the dictatorships of Putin and Xi which resemble the Tsarist autocracy in Russia more than the U.S. This analogy is also wrong because it is deeply unhistoric and applies an approach to states and wars which was justified in the epoch of transition of feudalism to capitalism to the epoch of decaying capitalism. In the epoch of rising capitalism, the bourgeoisie of various Great Powers in Europe played a certain progressive role and their struggle against Tsarist Russia – the main bastion of feudalism – had to be supported. In the epoch of decaying capitalism, the bourgeoisie of all imperialist powers has a thoroughly reactionary character.
7. Katz’s program of one-eyed anti-imperialism has reactionary consequences as it objectively lends support to Great Powers which are opponents of the U.S. (e.g. China and Russia). Likewise, he advocates support only for those workers and popular struggles which are directed against the U.S.-led “Empire” and its allies. In contrast, he refuses to support, and he even denounces such struggles if they are directed against Russia and China resp. their allied regimes.
8. We reiterate that socialists today must oppose not only one Great Power or one group of allied Great Powers but all imperialists – those in West as well as in East. No solidarity with any of these robbers – international solidarity only with the workers and the oppressed fighting for freedom and a live in dignity!
[1] The contributions of Claudio Katz are: Russia an imperialist power? Part I-IV, May-June 2022 (https://katz.lahaine.org/is-russia-an-imperialist-power-part/, https://katz.lahaine.org/is-russia-an-imperialist-power-part-2/, https://katz.lahaine.org/is-russia-an-imperialist-power-part-3/ and https://katz.lahaine.org/is-russia-an-imperialist-power-benevolent/); Desaciertos sobre el imperialismo contemporáneo, 18.09.2022, https://katz.lahaine.org/desaciertos-sobre-el-imperialismo-contemporaneo/. The replies of the author of these lines are: Russia: An Imperialist Power or a “Non-Hegemonic Empire in Gestation”? A reply to the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz, New Politics, 11 August 2022. https://newpol.org/russia-an-imperialist-power-or-a-non-hegemonic-empire-in-gestation-a-reply-to-the-argentinean-economist-claudio-katz-an-essay-with-8-tables/; “Empire-ism” vs a Marxist analysis of imperialism. Continuing the debate with Argentinian economist Claudio Katz on Great Power rivalry, Russian imperialism and the Ukraine War, LINKS, 3 March 2023, https://links.org.au/empire-ism-vs-marxist-analysis-imperialism-continuing-debate-argentinian-economist-claudio-katz.
[2] Claudio Katz: Coincidencias y discrepancias con Lenin, 15.10.2024, https://katz.lahaine.org/coincidencias-y-discrepancias-con-lenin/. To our knowledge, this essay currently exists only in Spanish language. It has been reproduced on various websites. All quotes are from this essay if not indicated otherwise. The translation from Spanish to English are ours.
[3] See on this e.g. Scandalous Verdict against Pro-Palestine Activist Michael Pröbsting. Report from 2nd Trial on 21 August, https://www.thecommunists.net/rcit/rcit-activities-in-2024-part-3/#anker_8
[4] I have published a number of works about capitalism in China and its rise to an imperialist power. The most important ones are the following: Chinese Imperialism and the World Economy, an essay published in the second edition of “The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism” (edited by Immanuel Ness and Zak Cope), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-91206-6_179-1; China: On the Relationship between the “Communist” Party and the Capitalists. Notes on the specific class character of China’s ruling bureaucracy and its transformation in the past decades, 8 September 2024, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-on-the-relationship-between-communist-party-and-capitalists/; China: On Stalinism, Capitalist Restoration and the Marxist State Theory. Notes on the transformation of social property relations under one and the same party regime, 15 September 2024, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-on-stalinism-capitalist-restoration-and-marxist-state-theory/; China: An Imperialist Power … Or Not Yet? A Theoretical Question with Very Practical Consequences! Continuing the Debate with Esteban Mercatante and the PTS/FT on China’s class character and consequences for the revolutionary strategy, 22 January 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-imperialist-power-or-not-yet/; China‘s transformation into an imperialist power. A study of the economic, political and military aspects of China as a Great Power (2012), in: Revolutionary Communism No. 4, https://www.thecommunists.net/publications/revcom-1-10/#anker_4; How is it possible that some Marxists still Doubt that China has Become Capitalist? An analysis of the capitalist character of China’s State-Owned Enterprises and its political consequences, 18 September 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/pts-ft-and-chinese-imperialism-2/; Unable to See the Wood for the Trees. Eclectic empiricism and the failure of the PTS/FT to recognize the imperialist character of China, 13 August 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/pts-ft-and-chinese-imperialism/; China’s Emergence as an Imperialist Power (Article in the US journal 'New Politics'), in: “New Politics”, Summer 2014 (Vol:XV-1, Whole #: 57). See many more RCIT documents at a special sub-page on the RCIT’s website: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/.
[5] I have published a number of works about capitalism in Russia and its rise to an imperialist power. The most important ones are the following pamphlets: The Peculiar Features of Russian Imperialism. A Study of Russia’s Monopolies, Capital Export and Super-Exploitation in the Light of Marxist Theory, 10 August 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-peculiar-features-of-russian-imperialism/; Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism and the Rise of Russia as a Great Power. On the Understanding and Misunderstanding of Today’s Inter-Imperialist Rivalry in the Light of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism. Another Reply to Our Critics Who Deny Russia’s Imperialist Character, August 2014, http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialism-theory-and-russia/; Russia as a Great Imperialist Power. The formation of Russian Monopoly Capital and its Empire, 18 March 2014, http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/.
[6] V. I. Lenin: The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book. (The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature.) P. Struve. Critical Remarks on the Subject of Russia’s Economic Development, St. Petersburg, 1894, in: LCW Vol. 1, p. 499
[7] My most detailed works on the Marxist theory of imperialism are two books: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. The Factors behind the Accelerating Rivalry between the U.S., China, Russia, EU and Japan. A Critique of the Left’s Analysis and an Outline of the Marxist Perspective, RCIT Books, Vienna 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/anti-imperialism-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry/; The Great Robbery of the South. Continuity and Changes in the Super-Exploitation of the Semi-Colonial World by Monopoly Capital Consequences for the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, RCIT Books, 2013, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/great-robbery-of-the-south/
[8] See e.g. V. I. Lenin: Eighth Congress of the R.C.P.(b.), March 18-23, 1919, Report on the Party Programme (1919); in: LCW 29, pp. 165-170
[9] V.I. Lenin: Conspectus of Hegel’s ‘Science of Logic’ (1914); in: LCW 38, p. 171
[10] V. I. Lenin: The State and Revolution. The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution (1917); in: LCW Vol. 25, p. 447. We note that the official translation of this quote in the Collected Works starts with “Here was have what is most essential…” This is obviously a translation error which we have corrected.
[11] V. I. Lenin: Imperialism. The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916); in: LCW Vol. 22, p. 269
[12] V. I. Lenin: Imperialism and the Split in Socialism; in: LCW Vol. 23, p.105.
[13] V. I. Lenin: Imperialism and the Split in Socialism; in: LCW Vol. 23, p.107
[14] V. I. Lenin: A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism; in: LCW Vol. 23, p.43
[15] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: BRICS+: An Imperialist-Led Alliance. The expansion of BRICS reflects the rise of Chinese and Russian imperialism at the cost of their Western rivals, 29 August 2023, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/brics-an-imperialist-led-alliance/
[16] The figures are taken from James Eagle: Animated Chart: G7 vs. BRICS by GDP (PPP), 27 July 2023, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/animated-chart-g7-vs-brics-by-gdp-ppp/
[17] The figures are taken from James Eagle: Animated Chart: G7 vs. BRICS by GDP (PPP), 27 July 2023, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/animated-chart-g7-vs-brics-by-gdp-ppp/
[18] See on this: Henry Meyer, S'thembile Cele, and Simone Iglesias: Putin Hosts BRICS Leaders, Showing He Is Far From Isolated, Bloomberg, 22 October 2024, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-22/putin-hosts-brics-leaders-in-russia-defying-attempts-from-west-to-isolate-him; Dr Kalim Siddiqui: The BRICS Expansion and the End of Western Economic and Geopolitical Dominance, 30 October 2024, https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-brics-expansion-and-the-end-of-western-economic-and-geopolitical-dominance/; Walid Abuhelal: Can the Brics end US hegemony in the Middle East? Middle East Eye, 22 October 2024 https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/can-brics-end-us-hegemony-middle-east; Anthoni van Nieuwkerk: BRICS+ wants new world order sans shared values or identity, 30 October 2024 https://asiatimes.com/2024/10/brics-wants-new-world-order-sans-shared-values-or-identity/
[19] Ben Aris: Can the BRICS beat the G7? Intellinews, 19 October 2024, https://www.intellinews.com/can-the-brics-beat-the-g7-348632/?source=south-africa
[20] Angus Maddison: Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030AD, Essays in Macro-Economic History, Oxford University Press Inc., New York 2007, p. 379
[21] Paul Kennedy: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Unwin Hyman, London 1988, p. 202.
[22] Keishi Ono: Total War from the Economic Perspective, in: National Institute for Defense Studies (Ed.): The Pacific War as Total War: NIDS International Forum on War History: Proceedings (March 2012), p. 160
[23] For our analysis of the Stalinist states see e.g. chapter 2 of my book: Cuba's Revolution Sold Out? The Road from Revolution to the Restoration of Capitalism, RCIT Books, August 2013
[24] See on this e.g. my interview with LINKS: Imperialism, Great Power rivalry and revolutionary strategy in the twenty-first century, 1 September, 2023, https://links.org.au/imperialism-great-power-rivalry-and-revolutionary-strategy-twenty-first-century
[25] V. I. Lenin: Under A False Flag; in: LCW Vol. 21, pp.143-144
[26] V. I. Lenin: Under A False Flag; in: LCW Vol. 21, pp.143-144
[27] V. I. Lenin: Under A False Flag; in: LCW Vol. 21, p.148
[28] Gregory Zinoviev: Der Krieg und die Krise des Sozialismus, Verlag für Literatur und Politik, Wien 1924, p. 115 (our translation)
[29] V. I. Lenin: The Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups Abroad (1915); in LCW 21, p. 159
[30] For a critique of the concept of see e.g. my essay: “Multi-Polar World Order” = Multi-Imperialism. A Marxist Critique of a concept advocated by Putin, Xi, Stalinism and the “Progressive International” (Lula, Sanders, Varoufakis), 24 February 2023, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/multi-polar-world-order-is-multi-imperialism/; see also my speech at the Socialism 2023 Conference in Malaysia, https://www.thecommunists.net/rcit/michael-probsting-speaks-at-socialism-2023-conference-malaysia-about-de-dollarization-and-multipolarity/
[31] V.I. Lenin: Socialism and War (1915); in: LCW 21, p. 303
Otra respuesta a Claudio Katz sobre la actualidad de la teoría marxista del imperialismo
Un ensayo de Michael Pröbsting, 16 de noviembre de 2024, www.thecommunists.net
Contenido
Introducción
Un resumen de la visión de Katz sobre el Imperio liderado por Estados Unidos
El “Imperio”: un mito no marxista que se cierne sobre las contradicciones entre clases y estados
Dándole la vuelta a Lenin: la concepción idealista de Katz del “imperialismo” como política exterior agresiva
¿Están los BRICS+ en condiciones de desafiar al “Imperio”?
¿Por qué no ha habido guerras entre potencias imperialistas desde 1945?
¿El programa antiimperialista de Lenin sólo servía para situaciones revolucionarias?
El “Imperio” liderado por Estados Unidos y el zarismo ruso: una analogía equivocada
¿Mantenerse neutral o alinearse con la reacción en luchas populares importantes?
El programa del antiimperialismo tuerto
Conclusiones
* * * * *
Introducción
En los últimos años, ha habido un notable aumento del debate entre los marxistas sobre la teoría del imperialismo. Como parte de esta discusión, en el último año y medio se ha producido un intercambio entre el economista argentino Claudio Katz y yo que ha sido publicado en varios idiomas. (1)
Hace unas semanas, Katz, uno de los economistas progresistas más conocidos de América Latina, publicó otra contribución a este debate en la que describe tanto su análisis del imperialismo contemporáneo como algunas estrategias de resistencia. Básicamente, su ensayo se divide en tres partes. Mientras que la primera parte es un resumen positivo de sus puntos de vista, la segunda parte es una crítica de la posición leninista, dirigida principalmente contra mi primera y segunda respuesta a él. La tercera parte es una polémica dirigida principalmente contra las ideas de Rolando Astarita, también un economista argentino que cree erróneamente que la opresión nacional y la superexplotación imperialista han perdido su relevancia. (2)
Como ésta es mi tercera respuesta, me abstendré, en la medida de lo posible, de repetir los argumentos que ya he desarrollado en detalle en contribuciones anteriores. Me centraré más bien en algunas cuestiones teóricas seleccionadas que considero particularmente importantes, así como en cuestiones de estrategia antiimperialista.
Resumen de la visión de Katz sobre el Imperio liderado por Estados Unidos
Básicamente, el economista argentino sostiene que el capitalismo ya no se caracteriza por contradicciones entre potencias imperialistas, sino por la dominación de un único “Imperio” (liderado por Estados Unidos). En cambio, defiendo el análisis elaborado por Lenin según el cual el mundo capitalista sigue caracterizándose por la rivalidad interimperialista, que actualmente encuentra su expresión en un grado especial en las tensiones entre las grandes potencias occidentales y orientales (Estados Unidos, Europa occidental y Japón versus China y Rusia).
No sorprende que Katz siga defendiendo su tesis del “Imperio” y, en general, repita los argumentos esbozados en contribuciones anteriores. Tampoco sorprende que yo siga considerando que su teoría del “Imperio” es defectuosa. Esto no significa que esté en desacuerdo con todos sus argumentos. Estoy básicamente de acuerdo con su crítica a las tesis de Astarita. Como marxista antiimperialista, comparto plenamente su oposición al imperialismo occidental y me pongo del lado de los pueblos oprimidos que resisten. No lo hago sólo con palabras, sino también con hechos. Como activista político, participo y soy orador habitual en las manifestaciones de protesta contra el genocidio sionista en Gaza. Este año, fui sometido a dos juicios por mi apoyo inequívoco a la resistencia armada del pueblo palestino, que terminaron con un veredicto de culpabilidad y una sentencia suspendida de prisión de seis meses. (3)
Mis desacuerdos con Katz tienen su raíz en el hecho de que él es sólo un antiimperialista unilateral. Para él, “el enemigo principal… es la dirección estadounidense del sistema imperial” y se niega explícitamente a reconocer el carácter imperialista de Rusia y China. En consecuencia, sólo es un antiimperialista contra los EE.UU. y sus aliados, pero no contra otras potencias imperialistas como Rusia y China. Por lo tanto, no apoya las luchas de los pueblos oprimidos contra estas grandes potencias orientales o sus aliados locales.
Katz sostiene que su concepto se basa en la teoría de Lenin, pero tiene en cuenta “dos grandes cambios” que se produjeron “durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX”. “Por un lado, se formó un bloque de países divorciados del mercado capitalista (el denominado campo socialista), y por otra parte, se consumó la transformación del imperialismo clásico en un sistema imperial”.
Según el economista argentino, “El sistema imperial modificó la competencia bélica entre los principales colosos del capitalismo. Las sangrientas confrontaciones entre Francia y Alemania o Japón y Estados Unidos fueron sustituidas por un dispositivo comandado por el Pentágono que resguarda a los poderosos. El gigante norteamericano actúa como centro de un mecanismo estratificado y piramidal, que articula distinto tipo de asociaciones entre la primera potencia y sus socios. Esa configuración opera con normas de pertenencia, coexistencia y exclusión, que definen el rol de cada región en la geopolítica global”.
Si bien nuestro crítico reconoce que Rusia y China han surgido como nuevas potencias, niega no sólo el carácter imperialista de Rusia sino incluso que China se haya convertido en un país capitalista.
“En siglo XXI ese amoldamiento del planteo leninista afronta otro contexto. La implosión de la URSS fue sucedida por la desaparición del denominado campo socialista y la consolidación del capitalismo en Rusia, derivó en la nueva centralidad de una potencia acosadora y acosada. Moscú es hostilizada por la OTAN e implementa incursiones externas en su radio de influencia. Por eso actúa como un imperio no hegemónico en gestación. Desenvuelve sus prioridades en conflicto con el sistema imperial, pero con acciones que garantizan por la fuerza la primacía de sus intereses.
China ha quedado situada al igual Rusia fuera del sistema imperial y soporta las mismas agresiones del Pentágono. Pero a diferencia de su par euroasiático no completó la restauración capitalista y soslaya hasta ahora todas las tropelías de una potencia imperialista. No despacha tropas al exterior, evita involucrarse en conflictos militares y mantiene una gran prudencia geopolítica. Con esa estrategia defensiva refuerza sus relaciones de dominación económica con el grueso de la periferia”.
El “Imperio” – un mito antimarxista que se cierne sobre las contradicciones entre clases y estados
Como dije antes, no tengo intención de repetir todos mis argumentos. He demostrado en mis respuestas anteriores a Katz, así como en otros trabajos, que China ya se ha convertido en capitalista hace tres décadas. Cualquier análisis concreto de la economía china muestra que sus corporaciones (incluidas las empresas estatales) operan según la ley capitalista del valor, obtienen ganancias, etc. y he aportado numerosos hechos y estadísticas para probar esta tesis. En cambio, Katz, lamentablemente, se muestra muy comedido a la hora de aportar pruebas concretas de sus tesis. (4)
Asimismo, Katz limita su respuesta a mi análisis del imperialismo ruso a afirmar que, puesto que Moscú está en confrontación con el “Imperio”, no puede ser imperialista. Es simplemente un “imperio no hegemónico en gestación. Desarrolla sus prioridades en conflicto con el sistema imperial, pero con acciones que garantizan por la fuerza la primacía de sus intereses”. Para él, ser imperialista y no ser parte del “Imperio” liderado por los EE.UU. es una contradicción in adiecto. (5)
Por cierto, una característica general de las obras de Katz sobre el imperialismo es que limita sus argumentos principalmente a la esfera de las generalidades doctrinarias del estructuralismo, un desafortunado éxito de exportación de académicos “marxistas” de universidades francesas que ven la historia como un proceso sin sujetos. Como Lenin señaló una vez, esta teoría es un “estrecho objetivismo (...) objetivismo que caracteriza el proceso en general, pero no, por separado, las clases antagónicas de cuya lucha nace el proceso en cuestión”. En consecuencia, el estructuralismo –y las obras de Katz llevan su sello– se las arregla bastante bien sin hechos y un análisis concreto de la realidad. (6)
Por lo tanto, me centraré en abordar el fundamento teórico de la tesis de Katz sobre el “Imperio liderado por los EE.UU.”. Afirma haber elaborado la teoría de Lenin sobre el imperialismo de acuerdo con los cambios del capitalismo desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sin embargo, como demostraremos, más bien está liquidando la teoría de Lenin y poniendo patas arriba el método marxista.
Marx y Engels partieron del análisis de la política mundial a partir de las contradicciones entre las clases y las naciones, entre los Estados y las potencias. Por consiguiente, los teóricos bolcheviques consideraban al imperialismo como un sistema global contradictorio basado en el antagonismo entre las clases, las naciones y los Estados. Evaluaban la fuerza política y económica de las potencias individuales y sus relaciones entre sí y deducían de ello una caracterización de la situación mundial.
Por tanto, consideramos que el capitalismo moderno se caracteriza por varias líneas de contradicciones fundamentales que, por supuesto, están estrechamente entrelazadas: (7)
i) el antagonismo entre las clases,
ii) el antagonismo entre las naciones opresoras y oprimidas,
iii) el antagonismo entre las potencias imperialistas y los países semicoloniales,
iv) el antagonismo entre los Estados en general y las potencias imperialistas en particular.
Katz tiene un enfoque completamente diferente. Parte del dogma del “Imperio” dirigido por los EE. UU., sin ningún análisis concreto, y deriva su evaluación de los estados individuales y los movimientos populares en varios países de su respectiva posición respecto de ese “Imperio”.
Lenin consideraba al imperialismo como un sistema que surge de la base económica del capitalismo y de sus contradicciones de clase. El imperialismo, incluido cualquier “imperio”, no era algo separado de la base económica. Por eso, cuando los bolcheviques discutieron un nuevo programa en 1917-1919, Lenin se opuso firmemente a la propuesta de Bujarin y Piatakov –con quienes Lenin tuvo que polemizar repetidamente porque abogaban por el “economicismo imperialista” (el propio Katz se refiere a esto en su respuesta a Rolando Astarita, antes mencionada)– de eliminar sin sustitución la parte del antiguo programa que trata de las contradicciones fundamentales del capitalismo. (8)
Lenin señaló una vez, en su análisis de la Ciencia de la lógica de Hegel: “El pensar, que avanza de lo concreto a lo abstracto -siempre que sea correcto (...)-, no se aleja de la verdad, sino que se acerca a ella”. (9) Pero Katz hace lo contrario: parte de un dogma abstracto y subordina las clases y las naciones, sus contradicciones y luchas a dicho dogma. Esto hace que todo su esquema sea bastante poco materialista, idealista, es decir, poco marxista.
Si Rusia interviene con sus tropas en otros países para expandir su influencia, para sofocar rebeliones populares o para mantener en el poder a una dictadura aliada (por ejemplo, Chechenia, Georgia, Kazajstán, Siria, Libia, Mali, etc.), no es imperialista porque… Moscú no es parte del “Imperio” liderado por Estados Unidos.
Si China desarrolla relaciones económicas y financieras con países semicoloniales que resultan en la extracción de plusvalía de los trabajadores y campesinos locales, no constituye una superexplotación imperialista porque… Pekín no es parte del “Imperio” liderado por los EE.UU.
Por lo tanto, Katz tiene una visión muy opuesta a la de Lenin. Comienza con la cima de la superestructura política –el supuesto “Imperio” liderado por los EE.UU.– y subordina todas las luchas entre clases y estados a esta única característica. No es la relación entre las clases y las naciones lo que cuenta para Katz, sino más bien la relación de las clases y las naciones de todo el mundo con el “Imperio” liderado por los EE.UU. Como resultado, crea un mito no marxista que se cierne sobre las contradicciones entre clases y estados.
Con esto, Katz reemplaza el concepto de Lenin del imperialismo como un análisis político-económico con una teoría puramente política y unilateral que, en consecuencia, carece de toda dialéctica materialista.
Dándole la vuelta a Lenin: La concepción idealista de Katz del “imperialismo” como política exterior agresiva
Es bien sabido que la teoría marxista del imperialismo –tal como la elaboraron Lenin, Bujarin, Luxemburg y Hilferding a principios del siglo XX– se basaba en el análisis económico del capitalismo. Identificaron la monopolización –el proceso de formación de monopolios en el sector industrial y financiero– como el fundamento económico del imperialismo. Lenin subrayó este punto en repetidas ocasiones: “En estas palabras se destaca lo más fundamental en la valoración teórica del capitalismo moderno, es decir, del imperialismo, a saber: que el capitalismo se convierte en un capitalismo monopolista”. (10)
La formación de potencias imperialistas –algunas grandes potencias de larga data (como Gran Bretaña, Francia o Rusia), otras emergentes (por ejemplo, Alemania, Estados Unidos, Japón)– tuvo lugar inevitablemente en relación con este proceso económico de monopolización. Por eso, “...es consustancial al imperialismo la rivalidad entre varias grandes potencias por hacerse con la hegemonía...” (11)
El líder del partido bolchevique resumió célebremente las características de la época imperialista de la siguiente manera: “Hay que empezar por definir, del modo más exacto completo y posible, qué es el imperialismo. El imperialismo es una fase histórica especial del capitalismo. Su carácter específico tiene tres peculiaridades: el imperialismo es 1) capitalismo monopolista; 2) capitalismo parasitario o en descomposición; 3) capitalismo agonizante. La sustitución de la libre competencia por el monopolio es el rasgo económico fundamental, la esencia del imperialismo. El monopolismo se manifiesta en cinco formas principales: 1) cártels, sindicatos y trusts; la concentración de la producción ha alcanzado el grado que da origen a estas asociaciones monopolistas de los capitalistas; 2) situación monopolista de los grandes Bancos: de tres a cinco Bancos gigantescos manejan toda la vida económica de los EE.UU., de Francia y de Alemania; 3) apropiación de las fuentes de materias primas por los trusts y la oligarquía financiera (el capital financiero es el capital industrial monopolista fundido con el capital bancario); 4) se ha iniciado el reparto (económico) del mundo entre los cártels internacionales. ¡Son ya más de cien los cártels internacionales que dominan todo el mercado mundial y se lo reparten "amigablemente", hasta que la guerra lo redistribuya! La exportación del capital, como fenómeno particularmente característico a diferencia de la exportación de mercancías bajo el capitalismo no monopolista, guarda estrecha relación con el reparto económico y político-territorial del mundo. 5) Ha terminado el reparto territorial del mundo (de las colonias).” (12)
Katz ignora el proceso económico de monopolización en la economía mundial. El hecho de que China tenga tantas corporaciones y multimillonarios como los EE.UU., que la economía de Rusia esté dominada por monopolios nacionales que también exportan capital a otros países, todo esto es irrelevante para nuestro crítico.
¿Cómo justifica tal ignorancia? Reformulando la teoría marxista del imperialismo. Elimina la economía de su análisis del imperialismo y lo limita a la política exterior agresiva y militarista. Como ya señalamos en nuestras respuestas anteriores, este es un aspecto clave de la teoría del imperialismo de Katz que también es bastante evidente en su último ensayo.
Así escribe, por ejemplo: “El lugar de esas potencias en la economía mundial no esclarece su papel como imperio. Ese rol se dilucida evaluando su política exterior, su intervención foránea y sus acciones geopolítico-militares en el tablero global. Este registro permite actualizar la mirada de Lenin, evitando la repetición de sus diagnósticos, en un contexto radicalmente distinto al imperante a principios de la centuria pasada”.
Asimismo, si bien se ve obligado a admitir la fortaleza económica de China en el mercado mundial, afirma que esto no la convierte en una potencia imperialista. “Pero esa mirada desconoce la diferencia básica que distingue a un enemigo imperial de un dominador económico. Estados Unidos ejerce una opresión en todos los terrenos, mientras que su rival lucra con los beneficios del intercambio desigual, la transferencia de valor y la captura de rentas. Estas dos adversidades no son equivalentes para América Latina porque la primera imposibilita cualquier acción soberana y la segunda obstruye el desarrollo. Operan, por lo tanto, como limitaciones de distinta envergadura”.
Así pues, para Katz, un “dominador económico” (como China) que explota a otros países no es necesariamente una potencia imperialista. Tal concepción es coherente con la separación de política y economía que plantea Katz, pero completamente incompatible con cualquier pretensión de adherirse a la teoría marxista del imperialismo. Lenin denunció enérgicamente este enfoque, que era característico del progenitor ideológico de Katz, Karl Kautsky.
“Al definir de este modo el imperialismo, nos colocamos en plena contradicción con C. Kautsky, que se resiste a considerar el imperialismo como una "fase del capitalismo" y lo define como política "preferida" del capital financiero, como tendencia de los países "industriales" a anexionarse los países "agrarios". Desde el punto de vista teórico, esta definición de Kautsky es completamente falsa. La peculiaridad del imperialismo no es precisamente el dominio del capital industrial, sino el del capital financiero, precisamente la tendencia a anexionarse no sólo países agrarios, sino toda clase de países. Kautsky separa la política del imperialismo de su economía, separa el monopolismo en política del monopolismo en economía, para desbrozar el camino a su vulgar reformismo burgués tal como el "desarme", el "ultraimperialismo" y demás necedades por el estilo. El propósito y el objeto de esta falsedad teórica se reducen exclusivamente a disimular las contradicciones más profundas del imperialismo y a justificar de este modo la teoría de la "unidad" con sus apologistas: con los oportunistas y socialchovinistas descarados”. (12)
Katz no considera a China imperialista porque no libra guerras en otros países (todavía). Pero la agresión militar es sólo una forma de política imperialista, la penetración “pacífica” y la dependencia económica es otra, que incluso desempeña un papel mucho más importante. De hecho, la intervención militar ha sido más bien la excepción en la política exterior imperialista en las últimas décadas y tuvo lugar sólo en unos pocos países. En contraste, la penetración económica y la dependencia por parte de los monopolios imperialistas tienen lugar todos los días. Esto es tanto más cierto cuanto que uno de los cambios importantes en el sistema imperialista ha sido el proceso de descolonización que transformó a casi todas las colonias (África, grandes partes de Asia, Europa del Este) en semicolonias capitalistas. Con la desaparición de las colonias, también disminuyó la necesidad de intervenciones militares regulares y el despliegue permanente de tropas para mantener la ocupación. Por todas estas razones, los métodos de China de subyugación económica “indirecta” de los pueblos del Sur por medios financieros son un instrumento típico del imperialismo del siglo XXI.
La descripción que hace Lenin de este proceso suena bastante actual cuando se trata de la relación entre las potencias occidentales y China con los países semicoloniales. “Desde el punto de vista económico, el imperialismo es el capitalismo monopolista. Para que el monopolio sea completo hay que eliminar a los competidores no sólo del mercado interior ( del mercado del Estado), sino también del mercado exterior, del mund0 entero. ¿Existe "en la era del capital financiero" la posibilidad económica de suprimir la competencia incluso en un Estado extranjero? Existe, en efecto: los medios para ello son la dependencia financiera y el acaparamiento de las fuentes de materias primas y, después, de todas las empresas del competidor”. (14)
Básicamente, Katz defiende una concepción idealista del “imperialismo” como política exterior agresiva, que deja de lado la economía, la base material del capitalismo. Por lo tanto, es coherente con esta reinterpretación del imperialismo que Katz no considere al imperialismo como una etapa específica del desarrollo capitalista, su era de monopolización, sino más bien como una política exterior agresiva que siempre ha existido en el capitalismo. En su opinión, “el imperialismo (…) ha estado presente desde el comienzo del capitalismo”.
¿Están los BRICS+ en condiciones de desafiar al “Imperio”?
En respuestas anteriores a Katz hemos demostrado que la idea de un “Imperio” liderado por Estados Unidos que domine el mundo no se corresponde con la realidad del capitalismo del siglo XXI. No es necesario volver a reproducir nuestros argumentos y cifras. Sin embargo, tiene sentido tratar brevemente los acontecimientos que han ocurrido desde que publiqué mi última respuesta al economista argentino.
En los últimos dos años, no solo ha habido dos grandes guerras (en Gaza y Ucrania), sino también una expansión sustancial de los BRICS, la alianza liderada por China y Rusia. A principios de 2024, cuatro estados (Egipto, Etiopía, Irán y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos) se han unido formalmente a los cinco miembros originales (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica). Un país, Arabia Saudita, ha sido invitado a unirse, pero aún no ha decidido al respecto. En octubre de 2024, otros 13 estados se convirtieron en los llamados “países socios” (Argelia, Bielorrusia, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazajistán, Malasia, Nigeria, Tailandia, Turquía, Uganda, Uzbekistán y Vietnam).
Es cierto que esta alianza no es un bloque homogéneo y centralizado. Varios estados tienen conflictos entre sí, algunos tienen relaciones más estrechas y otros menos estrechas con las potencias occidentales. Sin embargo, Modi y Putin no se equivocan al decir que los BRICS "no son un grupo antioccidental, sino un grupo no occidental". Sin embargo, a pesar de tales afirmaciones formales, la alianza dominada por Oriente es objetivamente el rival político, económico y militar más fuerte de las potencias occidentales y es vista por ellas como tal. (15)
Y, de hecho, tienen razones para temer a la alianza BRICS+. Lo más importante es que China se ha convertido en la mayor o segunda potencia en términos de producción económica, producción industrial y comercio. Rusia y China son la segunda y tercera potencias militares más grandes. Y aunque la alianza no es un bloque monolítico, el hecho mismo de que docenas de países hayan mostrado interés en unirse a ella demuestra que las dos potencias orientales están expandiendo masivamente sus esferas de influencia.
Existe una diferencia significativa en el cálculo del tamaño de los dos bloques, dependiendo de las medidas de cálculo. El PIB nominal se mide en dólares estadounidenses con conversión de moneda al tipo de mercado, mientras que el PIB ajustado por PPP utiliza dólares internacionales (usando a EE. UU. como país base para los cálculos) que tienen mejor en cuenta el costo de En términos nominales, el G7 –la alianza imperialista occidental– tiene una producción económica aún mayor, mientras que, calculada en términos de paridad de poder adquisitivo, los BRICS+ ya han superado a las potencias occidentales. Obsérvese que las cifras de las dos tablas siguientes corresponden a los cinco estados miembros originales de los BRICS+, es decir, antes de que las alianzas se hayan ampliado con cuatro estados miembros adicionales y trece países socios (véase la tabla 1).