Emperyalizm: Bir "Antagonistik İşbirliği" Sistemi mi Yoksa Antagonistik Çelişkiler Sistemi mi?

El imperialismo: ¿un sistema de “cooperación antagónica” o de contradicciones antagónicas?

 

Reply to a contribution of Promise Li to the Marxist imperialism theory

 

An Essay (with 8 Tables and 2 Figures) by Michael Pröbsting, 23 November 2024

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction

 

A brief summary of Li’s concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation“

 

Were Thalheimer and Bukharin really the pioneers of the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation”?

 

A flawed methodological basis: Bukharin’s undialectical theory of equilibrium

 

A critique from the point of view of materialist dialectic

 

Capitalism in the 21^st century: restoring its growth dynamic?

 

Do we overestimate the rise of Chinese and Russian imperialism?

 

Is capitalist interdependence an obstacle for inter-imperialist war?

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

As I noted recently in a reply to the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz, the debate among Marxists about imperialism theory has intensified in the last few years. ^[1] A few weeks ago, another socialist writer, Promise Li, published a further contribution to this debate. ^[2]

 

Promise Li is a socialist from Hong Kong and now based in Los Angeles where he is active as a member of Tempest Collective and Solidarity (U.S.). His contribution is an elaboration of his concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” which he delineates, on one hand, from those who consider the “US Empire” as the one and only imperialist force, and, on the other hand, from those who support Lenin’s orthodox imperialism theory. As he refers to me (correctly) as a supporter of the latter camp, I would like to respond to his criticism. I shall illustrate – both methodologically as well as empirically – that the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” does not allow to understand the dynamics of the world situation in the current period.

 

As this is a wide topic, I will try to limit myself to deal with the specific arguments and criticism presented by Li. For a more comprehensive elaboration of my understanding of the Marxist imperialism theory I refer readers to previous works. [3]

 

 

 

A brief summary of Li’s concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation“

 

 

 

First, I would like to note that Promise Li, in contrast to various other contributors to the debate, consistently rejects any accommodation to Chinese imperialism. As he noted in an interview, “the left must focus on building links between those resisting US and Chinese imperialisms.” [4] Hence, he positively delineates himself from (proto-)Stalinist writers who adhere to a one-eyed anti-imperialism which strongly denounces the crimes of Washington but is very restrained when it comes to the crimes of Beijing and Moscow. No doubt, Li’s first-hand experience with the brutal reality of the Xi regime in Hongkong has been pretty helpful for his understanding.

 

Nevertheless, his concept of imperialism is problematic as he downplays the accelerating inter-imperialist rivalry and overestimates the stability and cooperation between the Great Powers. In contrast, I consider the capitalist world system as one which is long-term decline. In such a period, the contradictions between imperialist powers in West and East (U.S., Western Europe, Japan, China and Russia) as well as between these powers and the semi-colonial countries can not but intensify. Imperialism is not a system characterised by “antagonistic cooperation” but rather by antagonistic contradictions.

 

Before discussing the flaws of the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation”, we shall start with a summary of Li’s presentation. He relates the origins of his theory to the writings of German communist August Thalheimer and Nikolai Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik theorist. The concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” was later revisited by Brazilian Marxist collective Política Operária (POLOP) to which belonged, among others, Ruy Mauro Marini, most known for his theory of sub-imperialism.

 

We note in passing that the theory of sub-imperialism, like the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation”, lacks a dialectical approach. However, at this point we shall not discuss this issue and refer readers to other works in which we dealt with the theory of sub-imperialism. [5]

 

Starting from such methodological basis, Promise Li applies this concept to analyse the imperialist world order today. “[W]e can modify Thalheimer’s definition and consider antagonistic cooperation a particular stage of imperialism in which the terms for competition between national capitals take shape through or are mediated by the “interpenetration of mutual imperial interests and domains,” rather than cooperation and competition as distinct tendencies.”

 

Related to this, the author emphasizes the relative stability of the capitalist world system. Of course, he recognises its repeated crisis, however, he thinks that the tendency towards cooperation between the powers is prevailing.

 

“Without downplaying the ever-present threat of antagonistic crises and rivalries between states, this analysis foregrounds the capacity of the imperialist world system to maintain cooperative dynamics to maximize paths for global accumulation.”

 

Consequently, Li delineates his concept from other theories like, on one hand, that a “US-led Empire” would dominate the world and, on the other hand, from the orthodox Marxist imperialism theory.

 

“[W]e must not miss capitalism’s readjustment of its own constitution to develop new terms for recovery and stabilization. Antagonistic cooperation, a conceptual framework developed by Marxists in postwar Germany and Brazil, provides the best tools for analyzing this particular stage of imperialism. Unlike the unipolar theorization of Tricontinental or the multipolar rivalry of those following the Bolshevik theorists, which both overemphasize rivalry between imperialist powers, antagonistic cooperation understands the imperialist system as an interdependent totality that can accommodate interdependence between and beyond geopolitical blocs. Additionally, unlike the two models described above, antagonistic cooperation also allows for heterogeneity of power relations within this paradigm even as the overall structure of dependency between core and periphery economies continues to exist. For one, the rivalry between the United States and China does not imply their equality in the global imperialist system, which is still led and dominated by the former. What Claudio Katz calls “empires-in-formation,” and other intermediate or subimperial countries, are also cultivating the ability to occasionally check US power through military, economic, or other means. But this signals neither an anti-imperialist affront to US hegemony nor a straightforward leveling of the playing field as a new terrain of interimperialist rivalry.”

 

“Economic interdependence has shown surprising resilience even across rival geopolitical blocs. Existing theories of imperialism fail to fully account for these seemingly contradictory dimensions of today’s world system. Tricontinental theorizes the current stage of imperialism as “hyper-imperialism,” characterized by a unipolar “US-Led Military Bloc” as the sole imperialist force that renders all other global contradictions secondary or “non-antagonistic.” For the authors at Tricontinental, this imperialist bloc is being challenged by a multipolar “socialist grouping led by China,” representing “growing aspirations for national sovereignty, economic modernization, and multilateralism, emerging from the Global South.” Such a perspective disregards the implications of both the interdependence between the two blocs and the emergent role of certain intermediate economies — for example, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia — in developing regional hegemonies that facilitate imperialism amidst geopolitical tensions.

 

In contrast to Tricontinental, some see the form of imperialism today as an interimperialist conflict in the same vein as the First World War, which Bolshevik revolutionaries V. I. Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin first theorized. This view overly downplays the decline of US hegemony while overestimating the rise of new imperialists as a counterbalance to US imperialism. These faulty conceptions are two sides of the same coin: they overstate the dynamics of rivalry, thus obscuring salient sites of interconnection in the imperialist system that can yield powerful opportunities for solidarity across antisystemic struggles.”

 

 

 

Were Thalheimer and Bukharin really the pioneers of the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation”?

 

 

 

Who were Bukharin and Thalheimer? Bukharin joined the Bolsheviks as a young and dedicated militant and worked in the Moscow underground party before joining other Russian revolutionaries in exile. He became a Bolshevik leader in 1917 and was a key figure in shaping the party’s policy in the first decade after the revolution. Bukharin was a gifted theoretician who repeatedly clashed with Lenin on issues like the imperialism theory, the state theory as well as the national question. Nevertheless, he was a thoughtful and inspiring Marxist intellectual and Lenin appreciated his work, calling him even “the darling of the party“.

 

While Bukharin was initially a spokesperson for the ultra-left wing in the party, he joined Stalin’s faction in 1923 and played a crucial role in theorizing the opportunist strategy of the Comintern, the pro-Kulak policy of the regime as well as the expulsion of the Left Opposition led by Leon Trotsky. However, soon after the repression of the authentic Bolsheviks in late 1927, the Stalinist bureaucracy, facing economic crisis as a result of their past pro-Kulak policy, turned towards forced collectivisation of the peasantry and super-industrialisation. Consequently, Stalin – whom Bukharin now realised to be a “new Genghis Khan” – also kicked out the former “darling of the party“. However, in contrast to the Trotskyists, Bukharin and his supporters refrained from launching an opposition struggle and quickly capitulated to Stalin. This was the end of Bukharin as an independent politician and a few years later, during the horrific show trials in 1936-38, they were all shot. [6]

 

August Thalheimer was part of the left-wing of German social democracy before 1914 who joined the Spartacus League of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht during World War I. He became the Communist Party’s leading theoretician in 1921 when he and Heinrich Brandler took over the leadership. However, as they miserably failed in the revolutionary situation in the second half of 1923 (the “German October” which did not take place), they had to retreat from leadership functions. After the downfall of their intellectual mentor Bukharin in 1928, Brandler and Thalheimer formed the so-called international Right Opposition which criticized the Stalinists only for its ultra-left (but not its opportunist) mistakes and failed to call for an opposition struggle against the regime. Worse, they fully supported the arch-opportunist people’s front policy in the mid-1930s and refused to condemn the Moscow show trials. Unsurprisingly, the international Right Opposition crumbled in the late 1930s and only a small group continued to exist in Germany after WWII. [7]

 

Despite their methodological failings, Bukharin and Thalheimer – the first much more than the latter – were serious theoreticians who made a number of thoughtful contributions.

 

Promise Li resp. the POLOP collective base their concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” on a German-language pamphlet of Thalheimer – “Grundlinien und Grundbegriffe der Weltpolitik nach dem 2. WeItkrieg” (Basic Principles and Concepts of World Politics after World War II) – which he had published in 1946. In this pamphlet, the German communist called the imperialist alliance led by the U.S. as “antagonistic cooperation”.

 

However, while it is true that this term originates from Thalheimer’s pamphlet, POLOP’s resp. Li’s reference to this document is highly problematic. In this work, the German communist viewed his term “antagonistic cooperation” as a description of the situation after WWII. But he recognised that the cooperation between the imperialist powers was based a) on the overriding class contradictions between the Western powers and the expanding Stalinist camp and b) on the absolute superiority of the U.S. Hence his analysis of inter-imperialist cooperation was based on these conjunctural features.

 

Consequently, Thalheimer’s view of the world order was not one of “cooperation” but rather of looming World War III as the imperialist alliance was based on collective aggression against the Stalinist camp, i.e. the degenerated workers states.

 

“We have shown factors that have caused that the imperialists’ urge for territorial expansion does not result in war within the capitalist camp but rather primarily in imperialist cooperation in different degrees. Therefore, this urge for territorial expansion can only be directed externally: against the socialist sector, the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence.”

 

“If these facts show anything it is, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the ongoing general deployment for a new world war.” ^[8]

 

However, Promise Li’s understanding of concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” is a different one. Such cooperation can no longer be based on a common policy of aggression against a joint enemy since the USSR and its allies do no longer exist for three decades. Hence, Li views “antagonistic cooperation” as a new stage of imperialism – independent on the existence of a common enemy which would keep the imperialist powers united (like the Stalinist camp led by the USSR in 1945-91). In contrast, Thalheimer elaborated his concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” as a conjunctural description of a specific situation caused by the peculiar features of the outcome of World War II. For the German communist, such a situation of “antagonistic cooperation” would not longer exist when the common enemy had disappeared.

 

Likewise, Bukharin peculiar analysis of imperialism, certainly not without flaws, had definitely no approach which came close to a concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” as advocated by Li. Far from assuming a relatively stable world or even a prevailing cooperation between the Great Powers, he rather viewed imperialism as an antagonistic system characterised by sharp inter-imperialist rivalry and a tendency towards war between these.

 

“From the point of view of the ruling circles of society, frictions and conflicts between "national" groups of the bourgeoisie, inevitably arising inside of present-day society, lead in their further development to war as the only solution of the problem. We have seen that those frictions and conflicts are caused by the changes that have taken place in the conditions of reproducing world capital. Capitalist society, built on a number of antagonistic elements, can maintain a relative equilibrium only at the price of painful crises.“ ^[9]

 

“The transition to a system of finance capitalism constantly reinforced the process whereby simple market, horizontal, competition was transformed into complex competition. Since the method of struggle corresponds to the type of competition, this was inevitably followed by the ‘aggravation’ of relations on the world market. Methods of direct pressure accompany vertical and horizontal competition, therefore the system of world finance capital inevitably involves an armed struggle between imperialist rivals. And here lies the fundamental roots of imperialism. (…) The conflict between the development of the productive forces and the capitalist relations of production must - so long as the whole system does not blow up - temporarily reduce the productive forces so that the next cycle of their development might then begin in the very same capitalist carapace. This destruction of the productive forces constitutes the conditio sine qua non of capitalist development and from this point of view crises, the costs of competition and - a particular instance of those costs - wars are the inevitable faux frais of capitalist reproduction.” ^[10]

 

As we can see, Bukharin – in contrast to Li – did not view the internationalisation of capitalist production and reproduction as a feature which would limit the inter-imperialist tensions. He rather understood it as a development which would accelerate the conflicts between the Great Powers.

 

“The international division of labour, the difference in natural and social conditions, are an economic prius which cannot be destroyed, even by the World War. This being so, there exist definite value relations and, as their consequence, conditions for the realization of a maximum of profit in international transactions. Not economic self-sufficiency, but an intensification of international relations, accompanied by a simultaneous "national" consolidation and ripening of new conflicts on the basis of world competition—such is the road of future evolution.“ ^[11]

 

Hence, the Bolshevik theoretician characterised war as an “immanent law” of imperialism: “War in capitalist society is only one of the methods of capitalist competition, when the latter extends to the sphere of world economy. This is why war is an immanent law of a society producing goods under the pressure of the blind laws of a spontaneously developing world market, but it cannot be the law of a society that consciously regulates the process of production and distribution.“ ^[12]

 

In summary, we think the Li’s resp. POLOP’s reference to Thalheimer and Bukharin as pioneers of the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” lacks justification.

 

 

 

A flawed methodological basis: Bukharin’s undialectical theory of equilibrium

 

 

 

Having said this, we do not deny that there also exists an element of justification when Li points to the writings of Bukharin and Thalheimer. This is because the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” shares certain methodological similarities in their mode of thinking with these two theoreticians. Namely, they all embrace – consciously or unconsciously – the mechanist equilibrium theory which is devoid of dialectics.

 

As quoted above, Li’s “analysis foregrounds the capacity of the imperialist world system to maintain cooperative dynamics to maximize paths for global accumulation.” Likewise, he quotes approvingly another writer saying that “cooperation [between the imperialists, Ed.] for the maintenance of the system prevails“:

 

“As Sachs writes: ‘Antagonistic cooperation does not free the capitalist world from internal shocks at all levels, ups and downs. There are moments when antagonism seems to predominate, when the national bourgeoisies threaten an “independent” foreign policy, rebel against the schemes of the International Monetary Fund, and nationalize particularly unpopular foreign companies. The same phenomenon occurs among the imperialist powers themselves in moments of periodic relaxation of international tension. It disappears when there is a new upsurge in international tension and, as in France in 1968, when the capitalist regime is put in check. In the long run, cooperation for the maintenance of the system prevails.’”

 

While, as mentioned before, Bukharin disagreed with any view of the imperialist world as one of cooperation, he indeed sympathized with the philosophical teachings of Alexander Bogdanov who opposed dialectical materialism and elaborated a system called “organizational philosophy”. Bogdanov was a leading figure among the Bolsheviks in the years 1904-08 but Lenin had to wage a fierce struggle against him and his philosophy when the political differences – he combined his idealist philosophy with support for ultra-left politics after the defeat of the first Russian Revolution in 1905-07 – threatened to paralyze the party. Lenin’s famous philosophical work “Materialism and Empirio-criticism” is basically a polemic against Bogdanov’s philosophy which lacked both materialism as well as dialectics. ^[13]

 

Bukharin – about whom Lenin noted in his testament that “he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully appreciated it” – adopted Bogdanov’s equilibrium theory. This theory basically considers reality as a (relative, moving) equilibrium which, repeatedly, gets disrupted by sudden crisis and, after some time, restabilises as a new equilibrium. In other words, equilibrium would be the natural position of things. In his book “Historical Materialism” Bukharin expresses such a view quiet explicitly.

 

“On the other hand, we have here also the form of this process: in the first place, the condition of equilibrium; in the second place, a disturbance of this equilibrium; in the third place, the reestablishment of equilibrium on a new basis. And then the story begins all over again: the new equilibrium is the point of departure for a new disturbance, which in turn is followed by another state of equilibrium, etc., ad infinitum.” ^[14]

 

This does not mean that Bukharin ignored contradictions and the resulting motion as crucial driving forces of development. However, he viewed contradictions not so much as an internal, essential feature of all things (including an equilibrium) but rather as something external. This is because he ignored the unity of opposites and the struggle between its contradictory parts as the fundamental law to understand matter and its motion. “Development is the “struggle” of opposites“ – as Lenin said. [15] Hence, for Bukharin motion was not so much caused by internal contradictions but rather by contradictions between different things (equilibriums).

 

Such he wrote in said book. “If, in a condition of growth, the structure of society should become poorer, i.e., its internal disorders grow worse, this would be equivalent to the appearance of a new contradiction: a contradiction between the external and the internal equilibrium, which would require the society, if it is to continue growing, to undertake a reconstruction, i.e., its internal structure must adapt itself to the character of the external equilibrium. Consequently, the internal (structural) equilibrium is a quantity which depends on the external equilibrium (is a "function" of this external equilibrium).” ^[16]

 

“The precise conception of equilibrium is about as follows: "We say of a system that it is in a state of equilibrium when the system cannot of itself, i.e., without supplying energy to it from without, emerge from this state.“ ^[17]

 

Of course, Bukharin did not explicitly deny the role of internal contradictions. He was too much a smart Marxist intellectual for this. But despite his intentions, he systematically underestimated the decisive role of internal contradictions as the primary driving force of motion.

 

 

 

A critique from the point of view of materialist dialectic

 

 

 

The connection between the mechanist equilibrium theory of Bukharin and the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” becomes already clear. The philosophy of downplaying the struggle of opposites and of internal contradictions causing motion results in an understanding of reality as a state of (moving) equilibrium. On such a methodological basis, one ends up easily in viewing the world situation as one primarily characterised by relative stability and cooperation between the imperialists. As a result, one gets confused and can not recognise the direction of motion of world politics and economy.

 

The mechanist method is incapable of answering correctly a crucial question: what is the determining characteristic of matter – a state of equilibrium or contradiction, motion as a result of the struggle of opposites? From the point of view of materialist dialectic, the correct answer is that the struggle of opposites, contradiction is the determining feature since it causes motion, transformation, progress. In contrast, the state of equilibrium is only a temporary moment. Hegel was absolutely right when he noted: ”Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality, and it is only insofar as it contains a Contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity.“ ^[18]

 

This was also the understanding of Marx and Engels. The latter explained in his “Anti-Dühring”:

 

„Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be. Motion in cosmic space, mechanical motion of smaller masses on the various celestial bodies, the vibration of molecules as heat or as electrical or magnetic currents, chemical disintegration and combination, organic life -at each given moment each individual atom of matter in the world is in one or other of these forms of motion , or in several forms at once. All rest, all equilibrium, is only relative, only has meaning in relation to one or other definite form of motion. (...) Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself.“ ^[19]

 

Based on such an approach, Lenin emphasised in his article “On the Question of Dialectics” that motion and the struggle between the opposites are absolute while stability, unity of opposites is relative.

 

„The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.“ ^[20]

 

Hence, materialist dialectic refuses to view equilibrium as the “normal” or “basic” condition of matter. It is rather a temporary stage in a long process of motion. As Engels noted in his preliminary studies for his “Dialectics of Nature”:

 

“[T]he individual motion strives towards equilibrium, the motion as a whole once more destroys the individual equilibrium. (…) All equilibrium is only relative and temporary.“ ^[21]

 

It is now possible to better understand the category of equilibrium. Marxists don’t deny the legitimacy of such category. But it must be understood properly. Motion does not take place in vacuum. It is caused by the struggle of opposites. Such struggle can only take place if there is a relationship between these opposites. The totality of such relationships constitutes a kind of (temporary) equilibrium. But such relationship is in constant motion because “reality is a ‚process of creation and destruction’“ – as Abram Deborin, the leading philosopher of the great dialectical school which dominated the philosophical discussions in the young Soviet Union in the 1920s before it was crushed by Stalin, noted. ^[22]

 

Therefore, from the point of view of materialist dialectic, there exists a clear dialectical hierarchy. N.A. Karev, another leading philosopher of the Deborin school and a supporter of Trotsky’s Left Opposition, explained in a critique of Bogdanov’s equilibrium theory:

 

“Hence, Engels does not say at all that this or that state of equilibrium would not exist in reality. But they are provisional, they only constitute moments in the motion of matters, they make sense only in relations to this or that form of moments, they are the result of a limited motion. Hence, the states of equilibrium are subordinated and temporary moments in the process of motion and development. The fundamental and determining is the motion.“ ^[23]

 

Karev’s critique of Bogdanov seems to us also very appropriate to the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” as it is advocated by Promise Li and POLOP.

 

„Bogdanov’s theory of equilibrium basically rests on the static point of view and not the dynamic one, as it recognizes the moment of static state as determining and not the moment of motion of a given body. The category of ‘moving’ equilibrium does not solve the problem as it view the mobility as a breach of the equilibrium and not the other way round – that the state of equilibrium is a provisional and relative moment of stability within the process of motion. The unity of equilibrium and motion is here understood by emphasizing the category of equilibrium while dialectic emphasizes the motion of a body, which is always and everywhere inherent to it.“ ^[24]

 

This brings us to the last point of our brief philosophical excursus. Underestimating the centrality of struggle of opposites resulting in motion and overemphasizing the concept of equilibrium results in inability to assess the dynamic and direction of development. For a mechanist, who is fixated to the state of equilibrium, things appear as static, not much in motion. In reality, profound developments take place “below the surface” which can only be recognized by dialectically approaching a given state of things (an “equilibrium”) as a temporary expression of motions caused by the struggle of opposites.

 

To give a simple analogy from daily life. If one is cooking water at home, one won’t observe big changes most of the time. The water appears unvaried … until the final moments when it starts boiling. Does this mean that for 99% of the time, nothing is happening, and the water is just in a state of equilibrium? Well, you don’t need a doctor’s degree in physics to know that this is not the case but that a “hidden” process of heating is taking place in this period.

 

Similarly, Marxists analysing the developments in world politics and economy must not stop in observing only those phenomena which appear at the surface. They must look below the surface and identify the processes of accumulating contradictions in order to understand the direction of development with ruptures and explosions ahead. As Deborin once said: „First and foremost, a Marxist must determine the general direction of development.“ ^[25]

 

However, this is only possible if one applies a materialist and dialectical method and avoids the doctrinaire schemas of mechanist equilibrium theory which are just painting an illusionary picture of drowsy stagnation. Hegel noted that the method is the “soul and substance” and that “anything whatever is comprehended and known in its truth only when it is completely subjugated to the method“ ^[26] And indeed, without the method of materialist dialectic, one is lost to understand the dynamic of modern imperialism.

 

In the end, the mechanist method a la Bukharin obstructs the recognition of the decay of capitalism and the accompanying processes of wars, revolutions and counterrevolutions.

 

 

 

Capitalism in the 21^st century: restoring its growth dynamic?

 

 

 

As already mentioned above, Promise Li emphasizes in his essay that the elements of cooperation between imperialist powers (and also with national bourgeoisies in the Global South) are prevailing. Likewise, while he recognizes that capitalism is facing repeated crises, he believes that it has also shown the capacity to overcome these and to restore growth (albeit he says that this is not an automatic process but needs political intervention).

 

“However, we must also not mistake this interdependence for an inert tendency of the system toward equilibrium. In reality, the maintenance of this cooperation requires continual upkeep, especially as the capitalist system is forced to address the repeating appearance of crises stemming from its internal contradictions. The crises of profitability in the 1970s and the 2000s, for example, required fundamental transformations in how capitalism is organized in order to restore growth (and the suppression of working-class insurgency). Thus, the terms for cooperation must be consciously reinvented to be maintained.”

 

In contrast, we think that capitalism has entered a long-term period of crisis – or a “curve of decline” (to use a category from Trotsky’s concept of “curves of capitalist development” which he elaborated in a thoughtful article in 1923) – in the mid-1970s. [27] This process of crisis has deepened since the Great Recession in 2008/09 and the new period since then. ^[28]

 

Naturally such decay is not a linear process since a) capitalist reproduction proceeds in business cycles with ups and downs and b) there exist also counter-veiling tendencies. However, in the long run, the tendency of decline prevails, and this is a process which can be detected by numerous facts.

 

Most importantly, there exists a profound civilization crisis reflected in the devastating climate change with catastrophic consequences for growing parts of humanity. [29] Likewise, there is a clear tendency towards stagnation and decline in the capitalist world economy, resulting in growing waves of migration, social misery and more wars. Related to the same process is the accelerating militarization and rivalry between the imperialist powers. Two major wars – in the Middle East and Ukraine – with both having Great Powers, directly or indirectly, involved and with the potential to spread to other countries are powerful examples for this.

 

Since we have dealt with these issues on various occasions, we shall limit ourselves to presenting a few figures which demonstrate the declining dynamic of the capitalist world economy. As we can see from the figures in Table 1 and Figure 1, there has been a continuous decline of the growth rates of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – both in total as well as per capita – since the 1950s. One should note that these tables do not include the figures for the Great Depression of the world economy which started in late 2019 and which included the worst slump since 1929.

 

 

 

Table 1: Average Annual Growth of Global GDP 1960-2019 ^[30]

 

1960s                   1970s                  1980s                   1990s                  2000s                  2011-17               2019

 

4.9%                    3.93%                  2.95%                  2.70%                  2.58%                  2.75%                  2.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Such decline of the growth rates of capitalist economies goes hand in hand with, or has rather been caused by, a corresponding decline of the profit rate – which is, ultimately, the result of the declining share of living labour and the rising share of dead labour (machines and raw materials) in total capital. As Marx once noted, ”this law, and it is the most important law of political economy, is that the rate of profit has a tendency to fall with the progress of capitalist production.“ ^[32]

 

In Figure 2 we show the development of the profit rate in the 20 largest economies (G20 states) in the last seven decades. As we can see, there has been, as Marx predicted, such a long-term tendency of the profit rate in the last seven decades.

 

Hence, we can see clearly that world capitalism has not restored its growth rates of earlier times – despite numerous political interventions by the ruling class and despite “antagonistic cooperation”. It remains trapped in a long-time period of stagnation and decline.

 

 

 

Do we overestimate the rise of Chinese and Russian imperialism?

 

 

 

As the quote above shows, Li believes that I and likeminded writers would “overly downplays the decline of US hegemony while overestimating the rise of new imperialists as a counterbalance to US imperialism”. Unfortunately, he does not provide a single quote to proof his claim. Hence, I have not the slightest idea why Li thinks that I underestimate the decline of US hegemony. In any case, I think his criticism is not justified.

 

We did show in a number of works, China’s capitalist class could not only massively enrich itself at the cost of the domestic working class but has also been able to challenge the U.S. on the world market. Again, I limit myself to demonstrate this development with a few figures and refer interested readers to more elaborate studies. ^[34]

 

In the tables below we show that China has rapidly caught up with the long-time hegemon – U.S. imperialism. In Table 2 we see that China’s share in global manufacturing output was less than half of the U.S. in the year 2000 (9.8% vs. 23.7%); however, by 2022, its share was already nearly double as big as that of its Western rival (30.7% vs. 16.1%).

 

 

 

Table 2. Top Six Countries in Global Manufacturing, 2000 and 2022 ^[35]

 

Rank      Country                             Share 2000          Share 2022

 

1.           China                                  9.8%                    30.7%

 

2.           U.S.                                    23.7%                  16.1%

 

3.           Japan                                10.2%                  6.0%

 

4.           Germany                          6.4%                    4.8%

 

5.           South Korea                    2.5%                    3.1%

 

6.           India                                 1.4%                    3.1%

 

 

 

We see a similar picture when we look at the national composition of the world’s leading corporations as well as the global ranking of billionaires (Table 3-5). In all these categories, China has become No.1 or 2 – ahead or behind the U.S.

 

 

 

Table 3. Top 10 Countries with the Ranking of Fortune Global 500 Companies (2023) ^[36]

 

Rank     Country                                                        Companies                      Share (in%)

 

1            United States                                               136                                    27.2%

 

2            China (excl. Taiwan)                                    135                                    27.0%

 

3            Japan                                                                41                                      8.2%

 

4            Germany                                                         30                                      6.0%

 

5            France                                                              23                                      4.6%

 

6            South Korea                                                   18                                      3.6%

 

7            United Kingdom                                           15                                      3.0%

 

8            Canada                                                            14                                      2.8%

 

9            Switzerland                                                    11                                      2.2%

 

10          Netherlands                                                10                                      2.0%

 

 

 

Table 4. Top 5 Countries of the Forbes Billionaires 2023 List ^[37]

 

Rank      Country                                           Number of billionaires

 

1            United States                                 735

 

2            China (incl. Hong Kong)              561

 

3            India                                               169

 

4            Germany                                        126

 

5            Russia                                             105

 

 

 

Table 5. Top 10 Countries of the Hurun Global Rich List 2024 ^[38]

 

Rank      Country                                           Number of billionaires

 

1            China (incl. Hong Kong)             814

 

2            U.S.                                                  800

 

3            India                                               271

 

4            United Kingdom                          146

 

5            Germany                                        140

 

6.           Switzerland                                   106

 

7.           Russia                                               76

 

8.           Italy                                                   69

 

9.           France                                              68

 

10.         Brazil                                               64

 

 

 

Russia has also developed a monopoly capital which dominates the domestic market and which exports capital to various other countries – mainly in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Its economic strength has also been demonstrated by the fact that it has managed to resist an unprecedented wave of sanctions by all Western powers – because of the Ukraine War – since nearly three years. However, its position on the world market is substantially weaker albeit it has recently surpassed Germany’s and Japan’s GDP in PPP terms (Purchase Power Parity). [39]

 

While Russia is economically clearly behind the U.S. and China, it is a leading force in the military field. It has the largest nuclear arsenal and the third highest military expenditure. (See Table 6 and 7) Furthermore, it has demonstrated its military aggressiveness in numerous military interventions 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.) ^[40]

 

 

 

Table 6. World Nuclear Forces, 2024 [41]

 

Country                                          Total Military Stockpile                  Total Inventory (incl. Retired Warheads)

 

Russia                                            4,380                                                5,580

 

United States                               3,708                                                5,044

 

China                                                500                                                  500

 

France                                              280                                                   290

 

United Kingdom                            225                                                  225

 

India                                                 172                                                   172

 

Pakistan                                           170                                                   170

 

Israel                                                   90                                                    90

 

North Korea                                      50                                                     50

 

 

 

Table 7. Military Expenditure, in Billion US-Dollar as Share of World Spending, 2023 [42]

 

                                                         Spending ($ billion)          Share of World Spending

 

1. United States                             916                                     37%

 

2. China                                          296                                    12%

 

3. Russia                                         109                                    4.5%

 

 

 

Furthermore, China and Russia have recently substantially expanded their spheres of influence as the enlargement of BRICS shows. Four states – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and United Arab Emirates – formally joined the five original BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) at the beginning of 2024. 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).

 

As I did elaborate in more detail in my above-mentioned reply to Claudi Katz, BRICS+ had, after its expansion to nine member states in 2023, a combined population of about 3.5 billion, or 45% of the world’s people (and it is now more than half if one includes the new “partner countries”). Its combined GDP – depending on the method of calculation – is either a bit more than 1/3 behind the Western Great Powers (G7) or has already surpassed the old imperialist powers. Likewise, BRICS+ accounts for 38.3% of the total world industrial production – the main sector of capitalist value production.

 

As for energy sources, the BRICS+ members own 47% of the world's oil reserves and 50% of its natural gas reserves. ^[43] As of 2024, the BRICS, along with their new members, control approximately 72% of the world's rare earth metal reserves. ^[44]

 

Of course, it is true that BRICS+ is not a homogenous and centralized alliance. Still, it is a “a non-western group", as Modi and Putin emphasised, which is dominated by Chinese and Russian imperialism. Furthermore, the BRICS+ countries are capitalistically less developed and have a lower living standard.

 

Nevertheless, while Li thinks that I overestimate the rise of China and Russia as new imperialist powers, I rather think that he underestimates this process and, as a result, also underestimates the acceleration of the inter-imperialist rivalry. The military threats and nuclear sabre rattle between NATO and Russia as well as the accelerating military tensions between Washington and Beijing in the South China Sea resp. around Taiwan are clear indications that the imperialist system is not so much characterised by “antagonistic cooperation” but rather by antagonistic contradictions.

 

It is therefore hardly surprising that, as SIPRI reports, global military expenditure rises year for year since the mid-1990s and is now – with a total of $2,443 billion – about double as high as it was 30 years ago. ^[45]

 

The accelerating inter-imperialist rivalry is not limited to armament and military tensions. There is also an escalating trade war between the U.S., China, EU and Russia combined with rising protectionism. In fact, globalisation has ended since the Great Recession in 2008 after decades of massive growth (“Globalization”). Since then, i.e. for more than 15 years, world merchandise trade has declined as a share of global output from 51.2% (2008) to 45.8% (2023). [46]

 

So, when Li says that “far from undoing the neoliberal world order, the capitalist class innovates new terms for maintaining and reforming globalization”, he completely misunderstands the direction of development of relations between imperialist powers.

 

For all these reasons, it is difficult to understand why Li objects to the category of a “new Cold War” between the Western and Eastern powers, calling it an “ideological fiction”. Does he not see the rising militarism and acceleration of rivalry which are all pointing to another world war between the imperialist powers?

 

As I insisted before, Marxists must “determine the general direction of development” in order to understand the coming ruptures and explosions. Li’s concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation” does not help in understanding the dynamics of the current world situation.

 

 

 

Is capitalist interdependence an obstacle for inter-imperialist war?

 

 

 

Let us finally deal with another important argument which Li raises in his essay. As shown in the quotes above, he argues that “economic interdependence” has been a key feature of modern imperialism and, as a result, this would constitute the material basis for “antagonistic cooperation” between the powers. He even thinks that such economic interdependence would make an inter-imperialist war impossible or at least unlikely.

 

“Indeed, global economic integration still existed in salient forms during the First World War, but mostly just contained within geopolitical camps, which historian Jamie Martin calls “strained interdependence.” However, the rise of neoliberalism has developed a level of interdependence that endures even across rival state blocs, thus undercutting the possibility of open interimperialist warfare witnessed in the first two World Wars.”

 

We think that this is wrong – both methodologically as well as historically. As Bukharin correctly pointed out in the above-mentioned quotes, interdependence not only deepens economic links but also accelerates rivalry. In the past years, China and the U.S. have been among the most important trading partners of each other. This has, however, not prevented these powers from starting and accelerating a trade war. The same is now the case between China and the European Union where the latter has imposed substantial tariffs on Chinese imports. True, big business on both sides is not happy about this development. But in the end, they have to subordinate to the objective laws of capitalism and its inherent inter-imperialist rivalry.

 

As I discussed in my above-mentioned book about Great Power rivalry, there exists also a historic precedent for such a development. Britain and Germany, two major rivals in World War I, had close economic relations before 1914. ^[47] In Table 8 we see that Britain was Germany’s most important trade partner before 1914 (and the U.S. was No. 2) while Germany was nearly as important as France for Britain’s trade. However, such economic interdependence did not prevent these powers from launching the most devastating war against each other.

 

 

 

Table 8. Main Trade Partners of Britain and Germany, 1890-1913 (Average % Share) ^[48]

 

Britain                                                                        Germany

 

1. U.S.: 19.47%                                                           1. Britain: 13.85%

 

2. France: 8.99%                                                         2. U.S.: 11.03%

 

3. Germany: 8.90%                                                    3. Austria-Hungary: 10.15 %

 

 

 

Hence, in the long run, increasing economic interdependence between imperialist powers does not result in a more stable capitalist world system. It does not create a type of imperialism characterised by “antagonistic cooperation”; imperialism remains rather a system full of antagonistic contradictions.

 

 

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

1.           The concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation“ does not allow to understand the dynamics of the world situation in the current period. While Promise Li correctly recognises the imperialist nature not only of the old Western but also of the new Eastern powers (China and Russia), he mistakenly criticises supporters of the orthodox theory of imperialism of overestimating the rivalry between these.

 

2.           The reference of Promise Li and the Brazilian collective Política Operária to August Thalheimer and Nikolai Bukharin as pioneers of the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation“ is misleading. Bukharin, despite his weaknesses of schematism, emphasised the rivalry and antagonism between the imperialist powers which inevitable had to result in wars. It is true that Thalheimer elaborated the thesis of “antagonistic cooperation“ between imperialist powers in 1946. But this was a (correct) description of a specific global situation characterised by a) the massive expansion of the Stalinist states and b) the outcome of World War II with the U.S. as the absolute hegemon among the imperialist states. Hence, his thesis of more cooperation between the imperialist powers was directly related to their collective aggressive approach against the Stalinist states which was pointing to a new world war. Therefore, Thalheimer’s considered that the inter-imperialist tensions would be reduced because they were overridden by the massive acceleration of tensions between the imperialist and the degenerated workers states. However, since Stalinism collapsed in 1989-91, Thalheimer’s concept is no longer applicable for imperialism today.

 

3.           It is true that Bukharin, the political mentor of Thalheimer, was influenced by the philosophy of Alexander Bogdanov, a staunch opponent of dialectical materialism. Hence, he advocated a world view which incorporated the mechanist equilibrium theory – a concept which downplays the role of internal contradictions as the driving force of motion. Consequently, supporters of such method consider equilibrium as the main feature of matter while, in fact, it is rather motion. Hence, the Bukharinite method underestimates the tendencies of rupture, crisis and explosions in the world situation and overestimates its stability and equilibrium. The concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation“ suffers from such methodological deficits.

 

4.           From the point of view of materialist dialectic, internal contradictions, caused by the unity and struggle of opposites, are the driving force of motion. The mechanist method is incapable of answering the question correctly: what is the determining characteristic of matter – a state of equilibrium or contradiction, motion as a result of the struggle of opposites? From the point of view of materialist dialectic, the correct answer is that the struggle of opposites, contradiction is the determining feature since it causes motion, transformation, progress. In contrast, the state of equilibrium is only a temporary moment.

 

5.           There is a clear connection between the mechanist equilibrium theory of Bukharin and the concept of imperialism as “antagonistic cooperation”. The philosophy of downplaying the struggle of opposites and of internal contradictions causing motion results in an understanding of reality as a state of (moving) equilibrium. On such a methodological basis, one ends up easily in viewing the world situation as one primarily characterised by relative stability and cooperation between the imperialists. As a result, one gets confused and can not recognise the direction of motion of world politics and economy.

 

6.           Consequently, Promise Li does not sufficiently take into account the crisis-ridden character and the decay of the imperialist world system – both economically as well as politically. The capitalist world economy is trapped in long-term stagnation and decline, climate change is threatening the survival of humanity, and social misery and wars are spreading.

 

7.           The criticism of Promise Li that we would overestimate the rise of Chinese and Russian imperialism ignores the qualitative changes in the relation of forces between the Great Powers in the past one, two decades. The Eastern imperialists are seriously challenging the long-time Western hegemony – economically, political and militarily. In fact, Li’s critique is related to his underestimation of inter-imperialist rivalry and his view that “antagonistic cooperation“ would be the main feature of the world situation.

 

8.           Promise Li claims that “economic interdependence” is a key feature of modern capitalism and that this would “undercut the possibility of open inter-imperialist warfare”. However, history has shown that this is not true. In the long run, increasing economic interdependence between imperialist powers does not result in a more stable capitalist world system. It does not create a type of imperialism characterised by “antagonistic cooperation”; imperialism remains rather a system full of antagonistic contradictions.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Average Annual Growth of Global GDP Per Capita 1950-2019 ^[31]

 

 

 

Figure 2: Rate of Profit in G20 Economies 1950-2019 ^[33]

 

Promise Li'nin Marksist emperyalizm teorisine yaptığı bir katkıya yanıt

 

Bir Deneme (8 Tablo ve 2 Şekil ile) Michael Pröbsting, 23 Kasım 2024

 

Bu çeviri Köstebek Kolektif tarafından yapılmıştır.

 

 

 

İÇİNDEKİLER

 

Giriş

 

Li'nin "antagonistik işbirliği" olarak emperyalizm kavramının kısa bir özeti

 

Thalheimer ve Buharin gerçekten de "antagonistik işbirliği" olarak emperyalizm kavramının öncüleri miydi?

 

Kusurlu bir metodolojik temel: Buharin'in diyalektik olmayan denge teorisi

 

Materyalist diyalektik açısından bir eleştiri

 

21. yüzyılda kapitalizm: büyüme dinamiğini geri kazanmak mı?

 

Çin ve Rus emperyalizminin yükselişini abartıyor muyuz?