Servants of Two Masters

Stalinism and the New Cold War between Imperialist Great Powers in East and West

A Pamphlet (with 10 Tables) by Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 10 July 2021, www.thecommunists.net

Download
RevCom_NS#57 (Stalinism & Cold War)_WEB.
Adobe Acrobat Document 921.4 KB

Contents

Introduction

 

1. The New Inter-Imperialist Cold War

 

2. A View on the Military Strength of the Great Powers

 

3. The Main Point of both Statements: Siding with Chinese and Russian Imperialism

 

4. Stalinist Fantasies Shredded in the Light of Reality: The Rise of Chinese Imperialism

 

5. The KKE’s “criticism” and its fraternal bonds with the Chinese CP

 

6. Beside the Servants of Assad the Butcher - Who Signed the KKE-initiated Joint Statement?

 

7. The Xi Fan Club: Signatories of the CPUSA-initiated Joint Statement

 

8. The Concept of Multilateralism and Peaceful Coexistence: A Reactionary Illusion

 

9. “Socialism in One Country”: The Historical Roots of the Stalinist Concept of “Peaceful Coexistence

 

10. Serving Two Masters: The Eastern Imperialists as well as Sectors of the Domestic Bourgeoisie

 

11. A Note on the tight-lipped “Trotskyists” (CWI, IMT, ISA)

 

12. Conclusions

 

 

 

* * * * *



Introduction

 

Since early July, two Joint Statements on the new inter-imperialist Cold War are circulating which have already been signed by a number of Stalinist and ex-Stalinist parties. While these are not the first statements from such forces on the recent acceleration of the rivalry between the Great Powers, both statements are highly remarkable – both because of its contents and because of their signatories. [1]

 

Without doubt, these two statements have been provoked by the recent escalation of the Cold War between the imperialist Great Powers – between the Western imperialists (U.S., Western Europe and Japan), on one hand, and China and Russia, on the other hand. Naturally, the relationship between the states within in these two camps are not without conflicting interests and frictions. But at the moment – and for the foreseeable future – the main axis of the inter-imperialist rivalry is between these two camps. [2]

 

Before we present the main ideas of these Stalinist statements and discuss their problems, we shall start with an overview of the Marxist analysis of Great Power rivalry, its nature and its role in world politics. In addition, we will give a summary of the revolutionary program on this issue.

 

We urge all revolutionaries to discuss our conclusions. We consider agreement on the programmatic response to the inter-imperialist rivalry as crucial for Marxists as this is a key issue of world politics in the current period. We are glad that our Argentinean comrades in Convergencia Socialista – with whom the RCIT is in a Liaison Committee as a framework to move towards revolutionary unity – take the same principled and anti-imperialist approach.

 

1. The New Inter-Imperialist Cold War

 

The RCIT has shown in its works that this process of accelerating rivalry between the imperialist Great Powers is driven, to name the most fundamental factor, by the decay of capitalism which has provoked economic depression and destabilization of the global political order. [3] As a result of this we experience since some time the decline of the long-time hegemon of the imperialism – the U.S. In parallel, new Great Powers emerged – first and foremost China [4] and Russia. [5]

 

As the process of capitalist decay is accelerating, so is the decline of the U.S. as well as the rivalry between all Great Powers. As a result, a new Cold War between the imperialist camps started in the last years. It is inevitable, as we have seen in the last weeks with the shooting incident in the Black Sea, that such an escalation will sooner or later result in a full-fledged inter-imperialist war. [6]

 

In fact, leading representatives of the U.S. “Military-Industrial Complex”, like Admiral James G. Stavridis, author of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” – have publicly predicted such a war between Great Powers in the not too distanced future. [7] The global arms race, the increasing number of so-called “Freedom of Navigation Operations” by Western powers, where their navy enter maritime territory controlled by their rivals, the increasingly aggressive claims of Russia and China to exclusively control certain seas (e.g. Russia’s claim to control access to the Azov Sea or China’s claim to the South China Sea (or East Sea as Vietnam calls it) – all these steps are destinated to provoke military clashes. [8]

 

America’s rivals seem not to be too much worried about such prospects. After the latest skirmish in the Black Sea between the British HMS Defender and Russian forces, Russia’s President Putin remarked in an interview “that even if Russia had sunk the British warship, “those who did this” wouldn’t have gone to war as they’d know “they could not win a war like that” against Russia.[9]

 

And China’s governments – in the words of Wu Qian, spokesperson of China’s Ministry of National Defense – made clear that a declaration of independence by Taiwan “means war”. The Global Times, the English-language mouthpiece of the Beijing regime, added pointedly in an editorial: “Taiwan and the US should be sent a message: Do not misjudge or underestimate the Chinese mainland’s determination and will to defend its territorial integrity and to severely punish the reckless acts of “Taiwan independence” forces. If the island of Taiwan and the US regard the previous US administration’s last-minute acts as a new starting point of their ties and continue to promote “Taiwan independence,” it is predictable that military conflicts will be triggered across the Taiwan Straits. (…) The mainland has abundant power to do so. The 1.4 billion Chinese people are especially united in defending their territorial integrity. “Taiwan independence” means war – this is not only the declaration of the People’s Liberation Army, but also the common attitude of all Chinese people.[10]

 

2. A View on the Military Strength of the Great Powers

 

These are not empty threats as these imperialists know that they are capable to deliver strikes and counter-strikes against their rivals. As one can see from the Table 1-3, the U.S. was and remains the largest military power, but Russia is not far behind and China is catching up. The renowned Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) observes: “Chinese spending has risen for 26 consecutive years – the longest streak of uninterrupted increases by any country in the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.[11]

 

 

Table 1. World Nuclear Forces, 2020 [12]

 

Country                                Deployed Warheads        Other Warheads               Total Inventory

 

USA                                      1,800                                     3,750                                     5,550

 

Russia                                  1,625                                     4,630                                     6,255

 

UK                                         120                                          105                                        225

 

France                                  280                                           10                                         290

 

China                                                                               350                                          350

 

 

 

Table 2. The U.S. and China as the World’s largest Military Spenders [13]

 

                                Military Spending            Growth of Military Spending

 

                               in 2020 (in $Billion)         2011-2020 (in %)

 

U.S.                        $778 Billion                         -10%

 

China                    $252 Billion                         +76%

 

 

 

Table 3. The World’s 10 Top Exporters of Weapons, 2016-20 [14]

 

Rank                      Exporter                               Global Share (%)

 

1                             U.S.                                       37%

 

2                             Russia                                  20%

 

3                             France                                  8.2%

 

4                             Germany                             5.5%

 

5                             China                                    5.2%

 

 

These developments reflect well the general dynamic of the imperialist powers which the RCIT has pointed out repeatedly. U.S. imperialism is still a mighty force but basically it lives off its past successes. As the past hegemon of the global order (the self-proclaimed “World's Policeman”), it is hopelessly overstretched. The recent dramatic turn in the foreign policy of Washington – the hasty retreat from Afghanistan (another “Saigon moment[15]), withdrawal of most forces from the Middle East and Somalia so that it can focus its forces combating the rise of China – reflects the deep problems and contradictions of U.S. imperialism.

 

In other words, we live in a historic period which is dominated by wars and revolutions (and, consequently, also counterrevolutions). The issues of militarism, chauvinism and inter-imperialist wars are among the key questions of this period. It is impossible for Marxists to find a correct orientation without understanding the imperialist nature of all Great Powers (i.e. both those in the West as well as those in the East) and, following from this, the reactionary character of any conflict between these states.

 

As the RCIT has elaborated in its works, the only legitimate program of Marxists on this issue is the strategy of Revolutionary Defeatism as it has been advocated by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. This is the only program which allows socialists to take a consistent anti-imperialist and internationalist line towards Great Power rivalry. It includes consistent opposition against all imperialist Great Powers, i.e. against the U.S., China, Western Europe, Russia and Japan.

 

In these states, socialists are obliged to denounce all forms of militarism, chauvinism as well as sanctions and punitive tariffs. They must not lend support in any such measures either by their own ruling class or by a rivaling imperialist bourgeoisie. Based on the communists’ famous principle “the main enemy is at home“, revolutionaries aim to utilize any conflict in order to weaken and eventually overthrow the ruling class (or, to use Lenin’s words, to work towards the “transformation of the imperialist war into civil war”).

 

Following from this, authentic Marxists must energetically oppose those “progressive” forces which support in any way their own or any other imperialist Great Power. Revolutionaries recognize such forces as social-imperialist lackeys and combat their influence within the workers and popular mass organizations. [16]

 

3. The Main Point of both Statements: Siding with Chinese and Russian Imperialism

 

Let us now deal with the main points of the two recently published Stalinist statements. One has been initiated by Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) and signed by 31 parties, the other by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) which has been signed by 43 parties. (See the respective footnotes for a list of these parties)

 

The main parts of the CPUSA-initiated statement are: “The US, the de-facto leader of the NATO alliance has made it clear that its interests lie in igniting a “new Cold War” centered around anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. This is a threat to all workers around the world. Since the infamous “Pivot to Asia” under President Barack Obama, it has been clear that the US capitalist elite has seen the rising successes and power of the People’s Republic of China as a threat to its unipolar, neoliberal world order. During the administration of Donald Trump, the US government became increasingly aggressive in its anti-China and anti-socialist policies and many began to talk about a “new Cold War”. (…) Why does the world’s largest country lifting itself out of poverty constitute a security threat to the NATO powers? The answer is that it doesn’t. It does however constitute a threat to US hegemony and capitalist’s profits. Both China and its strategic ally Russia, find themselves surrounded on all sides by hundreds of US and NATO military bases. Despite promises to not expand in to Eastern Europe, NATO has continuously expanded closer and closer to Russia’s borders and is aiding anti-Russian, fascist forces in Ukraine while using economic sanctions to punish the people of Russia. The world cannot be allowed to descend into another anti-communist Cold War.[17]

 

The main parts of the KKE-initiated statement are: “The Communist and Workers’ Parties declare loud and clear that they denounce the aggressive plans of the imperialist organization of NATO, which are being escalated following its recent Summit. (…) Thus, “NATO 2030” constitutes the escalation of aggression, a preparation for war, and a proof of fierce competition with Russia and China. The military encirclement of Russia, the targeting of China and Iran, the announcement about a nuclear first strike, and the giant exercise “DEFENDER-Europe 21” refute any bogus claims about “the peace and security of the peoples”. The workers and the other popular strata are not in need of a so-called “new Cold War”, nor any imperialist plans, interventions, and wars in Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, the Caucasus region, the Black Sea, the Southeast Mediterranean, the Middle East, and elsewhere. (…) They have the power to fight against the dangerous plans and to strengthen the struggle in every country against NATO and any kind of imperialist plans that massacre the peoples; against military bases and any kind of weapons of mass destruction possessed by the imperialists.” [18]

 

While the two statements have some different nuances (with which we will deal below), they share the main point: the Cold War does not have an inter-imperialist character. There is only one imperialist camp which is NATO, i.e. the North American and Western European Great Powers. These are, according to the Stalinist Joint Statements, the sole responsible forces for militarism and the imperialist war drive. In contrast, China and Russia are not characterized as “imperialist”, quite the opposite, one of the two statements is full of praise for Beijing’s ruling class. The conclusion of these two statements is pretty obvious: as only one camp (the Western powers) is imperialist, the Stalinists advocate support for the other, supposedly anti-imperialist (or at least “non-imperialist”) camp, i.e. for China and Russia.

 

As the reader can see, the CPUSA-initiated statement is particularly outspoken in its appraisal of China (and Russia). NATO’s aggression against China is characterized not only as “imperialist” but also as “anti-communist” and “anti-socialist”. Likewise, according to the Stalinists, China’s rise “constitute a threat to the “unipolar, neoliberal world order” as well as to “capitalist’s profits.

 

These are laughable claims! China is a “socialist” or “communist” country by name only. In fact, it is a capitalist state with a strong monopoly bourgeoisie. As we have analyzed China’s capitalism in much detail in several works (see the references in the respective footnote), we limit ourselves at this place to point to a few facts which demolish the myth about “socialism” in China.

4. Stalinist Fantasies Shredded in the Light of Reality: The Rise of Chinese Imperialism

 

As a matter of fact, social inequality in China has dramatically accelerated since the introduction of the market reforms. Today, according to the World Inequality Report 2018, the share of total national income accounted for by the top 10% earners is 41% in China – larger than in imperialist Europe (37%). [19]

 

According to the latest issue of the China-based Hurun Global Rich List, China had the largest share of “known” global billionaires. (See Table 4) We see the same picture when it comes to the globally leading capitalist corporations. According to the latest issue of Fortune Global 500, China has become No. 1 also in this category. (See Table 5) [20]

 

 

Table 4. China and U.S. Lead the Hurun Global Rich List 2021 [21]

 

                                2021                      Share of “Known” Global Billionaires 2021

 

China                   1058                       32.8%

 

U.S.                        696                        21.6%

 

 

 

Table 5. Top 10 Countries with the Ranking of Fortune Global 500 Companies (2020) [22]

 

Rank                     Country                                                               Companies                          Share(in%)

 

1                             China (without Taiwan)                                  124                                         24.8%

 

2                             United States                                                     121                                         24.2%

 

3                             Japan                                                                     53                                           10.6%

 

4                             France                                                                   31                                           6.2%

 

5                             Germany                                                              27                                           5.4%

 

 

Hence, respected institutions both in China as well as in the West recognize that China is home of a large number of capitalist monopolies as well as billionaires. So, if there exists “socialism” in China, it is only “socialism” for the rich, but not for the popular masses!

 

How on earth can the Stalinists fantasize about the idea that China would constitute a “threat to capitalist’s profits”?! Well, the Chinese monopolies might constitute a threat to the profits of the U.S. corporations … because the make so much profits themselves!

 

The Stalinists’ assertions that China constitutes a threat to the “unipolar, neoliberal world order” reflects another myth. As a matter of fact, there exists no “unipolar world order”. There was a, historically short, period from 1991 until the late 2000 in which such an “unipolar world order” existed as the U.S. was the absolute hegemon. Between 1945 and 1991, world politics was shaped by the Cold War between the Western imperialists and the Soviet Union (and other Stalinist bureaucratic workers states). However, in general, modern capitalism is characterized by the existence of several Great Powers which stand in rivalry to each other.

 

In any case, with the rise of China (and also Russia), there exists no “unipolar world order” any longer – at least not in our universe! Table 6 and 7 demonstrate the massive shift of economic power from the old imperialist states towards China which has taken place since the beginning of this century.

 

 

Table 6. Share of U.S., Western Europe and China in Global Industrial Production, 2000 and 2015 [23]

 

                                                Share in Global Industrial Production

 

                                                               2000                      2015

 

U.S.                                                       25.1%                    17.7%

 

Western Europe                                12.1%                    9.2%

 

China                                                    6.5%                      23.6%

 

 

 

Table 7. Share of U.S. and China in World Trade, 2001 and 2016 [24]

 

                                               Share in World Trade

 

                                               2001                      2016

 

U.S.                                        15.1%                    11.4%

 

China                                      4.0%                     11.5%

 

 

 

According to latest figures, China’s lead in terms of world manufacturing – the heart of global capitalist value production – has increased even more. Today it accounts for 28.7% of global manufacturing output. The U.S. ranks as second with 16.8%. (See Table 8)

 

 

 

Table 8. Top 10 Countries by Share of Global Manufacturing Output in 2019 [25]

 

                                               Share in Global Manufacturing Output

 

China                                    28.7%

 

U.S.                                       16.8%

 

Japan                                     7.5%

 

Germany                              5.3%

 

India                                      3.1%

 

South Korea                        3.0%

 

Italy                                       2.1%

 

France                                  1.9%

 

UK                                         1.8%

 

Indonesia                            1.6%

 

 

 

Likewise, China has established itself as the leading nation in world trade. In Table 9 we see that China’s share in world exports (14.7%) is much larger than that of the No. 2, the U.S. (8.1%). This is even more the case if one adds the figure for Hong Kong to China’s.

 

 

 

Table 9. Top Countries by Share of World Exports in 2020 [26]

 

Share of global exports of goods (%), leading economies, 2020

 

China (incl. Hong Kong)                               14.7% (17.8%)

 

USA                                                                       8.1%

 

Germany                                                             7.8%

 

Netherlands                                                      3.8%

 

Japan                                                                   3.6%

 

South Korea                                                      2.9%

 

France                                                                 2.8%

 

Italy                                                                       2.8%

 

Belgium                                                               2.4%

 

 

Neither can one speak about a “unipolar world order” in world politics. Look at the growing influence of China and Russia in most regions of the world. In some cases, Russia has even sent its military (Syria) or its mercenaries (Libya) abroad in order to support its allies.

 

The other characterization of the world order – “neoliberal” – is also increasingly wrong. China never followed a neoliberal conception in its policy. Neither did Russia. Both have been rather characterized by a regime of state-capitalist regulation. However, as we have analyzed in more detail in our book on the COVID-19 Counterrevolution, there has been a decisive shift recently also in the Western imperialist countries where governments are turning away from neo-liberalism and towards more state-capitalist, Keynesian intervention. [27] Even U.S. President Biden tries to implement massive public infrastructure programs. As Marxists have explained again and again, neoliberalism was always only one of several options of capitalist policy. Other models with more state-capitalist intervention have existed throughout the history of modern capitalism (see e.g. state-capitalist interventions in the fascist states in the 1930s, the U.S. New Deal in the same period, the Keynesian policy in the West after World War II until the early 1970s).

 

It is characteristic for various reformists, Stalinists and Castro-Chavistas to identify only “neoliberalism” as the enemy of the working class. This shall help to avoid fighting for any authentic anti-capitalist policy and, at the same time, to justify their policy of supporting one of the other, supposedly “anti-neoliberal” faction of the bourgeoisie. In this context, it is worth drawing attention to following sentences in the CPUSA-initiated statement: “Some might have hoped that with the election of a new president, the US might become less hostile towards The People’s Republic of China (PRC), but they would now be greatly disappointed. In many ways, the foreign policy of the Biden presidency has amped up the hostility towards China and its largest strategic ally, Russia.” This is unintended mockery of itself since the CPUSA has been among those forces which enthusiastically campaigned for voting for Biden at the last Presidential election!

 

5. The KKE’s “criticism” and its fraternal bonds with the Chinese CP

 

The KKE-initiated statement is more cautious in praising China’s “socialism”. This is not caused by any anti-imperialist principle on the part of the KKE leadership. In fact, as we have pointed out in the past, bourgeois social-patriotism is deeply entrenched in the political DNA of the KKE. Despite characterizing Greece as an imperialist country, the KKE – via its General Secretary Dimitris Koutsoumbas – announced at a public rally in 2018: “We communists will, as we have always done in our century-long history, stand in the front row defending our territorial integrity and our sovereign rights. We are doing this so that any foreign intruder who dares to attack Greece will be annihilated.[28]

 

Hence, the KKE’s critical stand towards China is not based on an anti-imperialism program but rather, as we have noted in the past, on its practical, first-hand experience with Chinese capitalists. After COSCO, one of China’s big state-owned corporations, took over parts of the Port of Piraeus, its managers swiftly took action to ban all trade union activities. As PAME – the Stalinist trade union current – has strong roots among the dockers, it was heavily affected by this brutal capitalist measures.

 

However, such “differences” do not stop the KKE leadership to invite delegations of the Chinese Communist Party to the “International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties”. These are the annual international conferences of Stalinist parties which have been initiated by the KKE and which has led to the formation of the loose international network called SolidNet. [29] So, we see, the KKE leadership might criticize the CCP but it still considers it as a fraternal party and not, as Marxists do, as an enemy of the working class. [30]

 

6. Beside the Servants of Assad the Butcher - Who Signed the KKE-initiated Joint Statement?

 

The significance of the two statements does not only lie in its contents but also in its signatories. Here, the following facts are worth noting. First, as we already suggested above, one should not overstate the relevance of the different nuances in the two statements as they share the exclusive opposition against the Western imperialist powers. This common basic character of these statements becomes also evident from the very fact that 12 parties have signed both the one and the other. (See the list of signatories in the relevant footnote.)

 

There are several remarkable features about the list of signatories. Let us first turn to the KKE-initiated statement. Among the signatories are only few sizeable parties. These are, in addition to the KKE itself, the Communist Party of Bohemia &Moravia (KSCM) which got more than 10% at elections at nearly all national elections in the past three decades.

 

Other parties are smaller in the electoral fields but still play a certain role in the domestic labor movement. Among those are the Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP). While this party is smaller than the bourgeois-patriotic KPRF of Gennady Zyuganov, still it has some forces. However, as we showed in our book on Great Power rivalry, this party takes a social-patriotic stand in defense of its imperialist “fatherland”. [31]

 

Another noteworthy force is the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). While it does not play any role in electoral politics, it has some influence in the workers movement via its daily paper “Morning Star” as well as via its prominent role in the “Stop the War” alliance. However, as we demonstrated in another essay recently, this party is a prime example for Stalinism at its worst. It is an unashamed admirer of Chinese imperialism as well as of the notorious tyranny of Assad the butcher. [32]

 

This brings us to the two last noteworthy signatories, two parties whose very presence alone make plain the pro-Russian social-imperialist character of the KKE-initiated Joint Statement: the Syrian Communist Party and the Syrian Communist Party – unified. As it is well-known these two parties have been part of the Assad regime for many years which acts as a puppet of Russian imperialism. Hence, they are accomplice of the genocidal war against the Syrian people. [33] Make no mistake, any statement which bears the signatories of such Syrian “Communist” Parties has the putrid smell of tested servants of a butcher regime and its master Putin!

7. The Xi Fan Club: Signatories of the CPUSA-initiated Joint Statement

 

The list of signatories of the CPUSA-initiated statement is even more interesting. The CPUSA itself is not a particular relevant party but it is a dedicated cheerleader of the Stalinist-capitalist regime in Beijing. Not long ago, John Bachtell, the party’s Chairman, wrote a most shameless eulogy: “The CPC is a deeply revolutionary party, creatively applying Marxism to the Chinese reality. Their approach is pragmatic, fact based, self-critical, and self-reforming. Far from building a capitalist economy, the CPC is charting a path in the context of China’s realities, guiding the country to achieve a modern socialist society under extraordinary difficult conditions and not without many problems, mistakes and shortcomings, one with ‘Chinese characteristics.’” [34]

 

However, there are other, more significant signatories of this unashamed pro-China Joint Statement. The above-mentioned KSCM is among them as it signed both statements. The Tudeh Party of Iran – a prominent party of the past (it supported the Khomeini dictatorship in the first period) – is one of them. The Italian Party of the Communist Refoundation is another light of the past. In the 1990s and 2000s it was twice part of the neo-liberal Prodi government before it collapsed and lost its seats in parliament. In this period, it was a leading force of the European Left – a Europe-wide association of mostly ex-Stalinist, now “left” social democratic parties.

 

Two other, and more significant, parties are the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) and the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB). Both have been part of the popular front alliance around Lula’s PT. The PCdoB, the larger of the two, was part of the former government and still has seats in national and regional parliaments.

 

The signature of the small German Communist Party (DKP) is not particularly noteworthy. In contrast, the support by the French Communist Party (PCF) as well as by the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) is indeed very interesting. This is the case for several reasons. First, both are sizeable parties with a presence in national and regional parliaments as well as a number of mayors. The PCF was part of the Mitterand government in the early 1980s and of the Jospin government in 1997-2002. It also supported the Hollande government in 2012-17. The Spanish PCE is even part of the current government of Prime Minister Sanchez.

 

Secondly, their signatures are remarkable as both parties are members of the European Left (EL). In fact, they belong to the most important forces within the EL – alongside SYRIZA in Greece and the German LINKE. Normally, such EL forces don’t act in common with KKE-affiliated parties. As it is known, the KKE calls SYRIZA a traitor party as it implemented in its years as governmental party (2015-19) the devastating austerity packages which resulted from the imperialist EU-Memorandum.

 

Finally, the signatures of the PCF and the PCE are also interesting as these are governmental parties – in past or present – of countries which belong to the imperialist NATO alliance. These facts alone, by the way, demonstrate that these Stalinist parties are not “anti-imperialist” in any way. As we have pointed out in past works, the PCF was part of the Jospin government which participated in the NATO war against Serbia in 1999 as well as in the imperialist invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. [35] In 2013, the PCF only half-heartedly opposed the French military intervention in France. [36] Likewise, it failed to oppose the participation of French forces in Iraq as part of the so-called Anti-ISIS-Coalition. [37]

 

The PCE, being part of the Sanchez government since January 2020, has been fully committed to the bonapartist Lockdown policy, including the deployment to the army on the streets in order to impose mass curfews (under the pretext of the pandemic). [38]

 

8. The Concept of Multilateralism and Peaceful Coexistence: A Reactionary Illusion

 

Before we discuss the meaning of the list of signatory parties and what it tells us about their class character, we want to deal with a central political conception of Stalinism which is relevant for the issue under discussion. As we pointed out above, a key argument of their support for China and Russia is the critique of the “unipolar world order”. As we already explained, such a world order does not exist anymore in reality. However, what is of interest for us at this point is the question what is the alternative concept of the Stalinists?

 

The key words of their alternative are “multilateralism” and “peaceful coexistence”. The former concept simply means that instead of one absolute hegemon there should be several powers which treat each other as equals. The later concept means that these powers should co-exist without conflicts and wars.

 

Both concepts lack any basis in the real world which is the world of capitalism and its inner contradictions. Capitalism is characterized, by its very nature, by competition between different capitalists and by rivalry between different powers. It has always been like this, and it could not have been otherwise. Britain vs. Russia, Britain vs. France, France vs. Germany, Russia vs. Japan, the U.S. vs. Spain etc. – they all waged war against each other and all of them were involved in the two World Wars in the first half of the 20th century.

 

When World War II resulted a) in the absolute hegemony of U.S. imperialism among the capitalist states and b) by the expansion of Stalinism, the age of Cold War began. This reduced the inter-imperialist conflicts to a certain degree, but only because they were superseded by the conflict between imperialism and deformed workers states. This conflict resulted, among others, in the Korean War 1950-53 and the Vietnam War 1965-75 and provoked several times the actual danger of a nuclear war (e.g. the so-called “Cuba crisis” in 1962 or the escalation in the first half of the 1980s). Finally, the rule of the Stalinist bureaucracies in the USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed in 1989-91. Well, the concept of “peaceful coexistence” did not produce particularly successful results for Stalinism!

 

In summary, in periods when several capitalist Great Powers played a strong role in world politics (i.e. without an absolute hegemon subordinating the others), major wars were the inevitable results. In short, “multilateralism” can not but result in war. And the “peaceful coexistence” between imperialist and (degenerated) workers states is neither peaceful nor can they coexist for long.

 

How could, theoretically, look a “multilateral world order” look like today? Should there be an enlarged UN Security Council composed, for example, by the G20 states? Hence, such a council would not only include the Great Powers but also other states like South Korea, India, Brazil, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, etc. But why should the ruling classes of these states be able, or even willing, to create a peaceful world?! Capitalism is in decay, the world economy – the basis for the corporations’ profits – is oscillating between depression and stagnation, the climate change provokes repeated catastrophes, etc. – how could it be otherwise than that the corporations intensify their competition and that the states accelerate their rivalry?!

 

Some Stalinists might object that all tensions are caused by the aggressive foreign policy of U.S. imperialism. No doubt, Washington pursues an expansionist foreign policy. But it is totally illegitimate for a Marxist to assume only one imperialist state or even one capitalist state is aggressive, and all other imperialist and capitalist states have no expansionist goals. Just look back to various events in world politics in the last few years and one will see that the clash of interest between various states results in tensions, trade wars, threat of wars or actual wars. Let us refer to the sanctions between the US. and the EU [39], the trade war between Japan and South Korea [40], the threat of war between China and India in 2017 as well as in 2020 [41], the war threats between Egypt and Ethiopia, the invasion of Saudi Arabia and UAE in Yemen since 2015 [42], the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020 [43], the civil wars in Syria and Libya [44] (with the participation of foreign actors), the tensions in the South China Sea between China, on one hand, and its neighbors like Vietnam or the Philippines on the other hand, etc. No, the ruling classes of all these states defend their own capitalist interests when they are in conflict with another state; they do not simply defend the interests of Washington or of any other foreign power.

 

In short, a world order where the U.S. is no longer the absolute hegemon but only one of several Great Powers is definitely not more peaceful! It is only the stage of open rivalry between the Great Powers, the intermediary stage between unilateralism and World War III!

 

To put it more generally: whenever, in the history of class societies, did Empires exist peacefully side by side without tensions, conflicts and ultimately wars?! And all this is even more the case in the epoch of imperialism, i.e. the epoch of capitalism in decay! Let us note in passing that in the last epoch of capitalism contradictions between the classes and states are evolving – and clashing – with much faster speed than in any other historical epoch before. The whole Marxist analysis of the epoch of monopoly capitalism and imperialism is based on the understanding that the contradictions between classes and states inevitable accelerate because the capitalist system is in decline.

 

No, the concept of “multilateralism” is nothing but a diplomatic cover for the desire of China and Russia to be treated as Great Powers “equal” to the U.S. And the phrase of “peaceful coexistence” is for the simpletons in the Stalinist, pacifist and liberal camp. Objectively, i.e. irrespective of their subjective intentions, the advocates of a “multilateral world order” and “peaceful coexistence” are servants of Chinese and Russian imperialism. Their Joint Statements are nothing but an expression of pro-Eastern social-imperialism, laced with pacifism and hypocrisy.

 

9. “Socialism in One Country”: The Historical Roots of the Stalinist Concept of “Peaceful Coexistence

 

The concepts of “multilateralism” and “peaceful coexistence” are not new. They were created by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the late 1920s and early 1930s and were the result of the famous opportunist theory of Socialism in One Country”. As this theory has been dealt with by Marxists in various works, we limit ourselves at this point to a very short characterization. [45] The Stalinist theory of “Socialism in One Country” erroneously assumes that socialism – i.e. a society in which wealth of the people is growing and results in the reduction of labor time and in which classes and the state are successively withering away – could be established within the boundaries of one country. As Trotsky and other Marxists pointed out repeatedly this is an illusion because of the international nature of the productive forces. Confined to a single country they could develop only in a limited way and definitely not surpass the advanced capitalist countries. The collapse of various Stalinist workers states after a long period of economic stagnation was a powerful confirmation of Trotsky’s theory. Furthermore, the Stalinist theory is based on the illusion that capitalist and workers states could peacefully coexist side-by-side despite the fact that they represented fundamentally antagonistic class interests.

 

Trotsky and his supporters – from the beginning of the Left Opposition constituted in 1923 against the Stalinist bureaucracy which later became the Fourth International by 1938 – argued that Marxists must not orientate to build socialism in national isolation but rather as part of an international strategy of permanent revolution. Since stagnation and bureaucratic dictatorship are inevitable if the revolution remains confined to a single country (or a group of countries), Trotskyists advocate a strategy which focused on aiding the international class struggle in order to expand the revolutionary process. Naturally, this does not exclude periods of retreat and even isolation. But the building of socialism in one country must be always subordinated to the strategy of advancing the world revolution and not the other way around, as the Stalinists did: subordinating the international class struggle to the interests of the bureaucratic caste ruling in one (or several) countries. [46]

 

In his famous book on permanent revolution, Trotsky formulated the essential internationalist character of the proletarian strategy like this: “The international character of the socialist revolution, which constitutes the third aspect of the theory of the permanent revolution, flows from the present state of economy and the social structure of humanity. Internationalism is no abstract principle but a theoretical and political reflection of the character of world economy, of the world development of productive forces and the world scale of the class struggle. The socialist revolution begins on national foundations – but it cannot be completed within these foundations. The maintenance of the proletarian revolution within a national framework can only be a provisional state of affairs, even though, as the experience of the Soviet Union shows, one of long duration. In an isolated proletarian dictatorship, the internal and external contradictions grow inevitably along with the successes achieved. If it remains isolated, the proletarian state must finally fall victim to these contradictions. The way out for it lies only in the victory of the proletariat of the advanced countries. Viewed from this standpoint, a national revolution is not a self-contained whole; it is only a link in the international chain. The international revolution constitutes a permanent process, despite temporary declines and ebbs.“ [47]

 

These ideas were a continuation of Lenin’s own understanding which he explained numerous times in the years before his death. Trotsky had published a number of such statements by Lenin in an appendix to his “History of the Russian Revolution“. [48] Here is just one, from a speech in 1906, which shows how early Lenin understood already the necessity to fight for an internationalist perspective of the revolution: „If we mean a real, fully effective, economic guarantee against restoration, that is, a guarantee that would create the economic conditions precluding restoration, then we shall have to say: the only guarantee against restoration is a socialist revolution in the West. There can be no other guarantee in the real and full sense of the term. (…) I would formulate this proposition as follows: the Russian revolution can achieve victory by its own efforts, but it cannot possibly hold and consolidate its gains by its own strength. It cannot do this unless there is a socialist revolution in the West. (…) After the complete victory of the democratic revolution the small proprietor will inevitably turn against the proletariat; and the sooner the common enemies of the proletariat and of the small proprietors, such as the capitalists, the landlords, the financial bourgeoisie, and so forth are overthrown, the sooner will this happen. Our democratic republic has no other reserve than the socialist proletariat in the West. [49]

 

Already in December 1927, at the 15th Congress of the Communist Party when the bureaucracy expelled Trotsky’s Left Opposition, Stalin claimed that that peaceful coexistence of the USSR with capitalist countries would be possible. “Therefore, the maintenance of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obligatory task for us. Our relations with the capitalist countries are based on the assumption that the co-existence of two opposite systems is possible. Practice has fully confirmed this.[50]

 

A few years later, Stalin repeated this concept in an interview with an American journalist. “Stalin gave a popular explanation of the policy as the Soviet Union saw it, in November 1930, to Mr. Walter Duranty, the American journalist: 'Duranty: You see no reason why the capitalist and Communist systems should not exist side by side without fighting? Stalin: They have not fought for ten years, which means they can coexist. We don't want to fight, and some of their people don’t either.[51]

 

Such an approach was only logical from the point of view of the Stalinist bureaucracy. If it was possible to build “socialism in one country”, the task was to ensure that foreign powers do not interfere and disturb this process. Hence, such a conservative concept could not orientate towards expanding the revolutionary process but rather towards appeasing the capitalist powers and towards utilizing the international class struggle in order to aid such goal.

 

The concept of “peaceful coexistence” (sometimes also called “collective security”) was further developed and put into practice in 1934, when the USSR joined the League of Nations (the predecessor of the United Nations). One year later, Moscow and Paris concluded the famous Stalin-Laval Pact which represented an alliance of the Stalinist bureaucracy with French imperialism.

 

At that time, Stalin renewed advocacy of his illusionary concept of “peaceful coexistence” with imperialism. He said in an interview: “Howard: Do you view as compatible the coincidental development of American democracy and the Soviet system? Stalin: American democracy and the Soviet system may peacefully exist side by side and compete with each other. But one cannot evolve into the other. The Soviet system will not evolve into American democracy, or vice versa. We can peacefully exist side by side if we do not find fault with each other over every trifling matter.[52]

 

Consequently, the Communist International became a social-patriotic force and the PCF voted in the French parliament, for the first time, for the governments’ military budget. As the Trotsky noted at that time, this alliance meant that the Communist International had been transformed by the mid-1930s into a reformist force and a servant of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

 

As it is well known, joining the League of Nations and concluding alliances with imperialist Great Powers didn’t help the Soviet Union to avoid war. As French imperialism, “surprisingly”, continued a foreign policy based on imperialist interests and didn’t bring any positive results for Moscow, the Kremlin switched alliance in August 1939 and signed the notorious Hitler-Stalin Pact. Again “surprisingly”, Hitler did not loyally adhere to the pact and invaded the USSR in June 1941. As a result, Moscow again turned to the Western imperialists. This alliance ended when Washington declared the beginning of the Cold War in 1947.

 

All these alliances were not strictly limited to trade agreements or military arrangements (which in itself would not have been illegitimate for a workers state). However, these treaties rather had the character of strategic and political alliances. In France, the PCF became supporters of the capitalist government and voted for the military budget. When Stalin switched his alliance, the Communist parties followed suit. During the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Comintern denounced “plutocratic” Western imperialism and praised the “peace-loving” foreign policy of Nazi-Germany. When Hitler was no longer a “peace-lover” – i.e. when he did not only invade Poland, Norway, Yugoslavia, etc. but also the Soviet Union – Moscow was forced to make another turn. From 1941, Britain and U.S. were not characterized as imperialist powers but as “anti-fascist democracies”. The Communist Parties were instructed to unconditionally support them and to strictly oppose all forms of class struggle against them. Hence, the CP of India denounced the popular uprising against the British colonial administration in August 1942. And the British CP opposed all workers strikes at that time as such would “only serve Hitler”.

 

In the years 1945-47, Communist Parties participated in Popular Front governments in France, Italy and Austria – jointly with conservative and social democratic parties. Their role at that time was a decisive aid for the national bourgeoisie as they were key to disarm the partisans, to utilize the trade unions as instruments to suppress militant strikes, or to pacify insurrections of the colonial people (e.g. in Algeria in May 1945 or in Indochina). This role was essential for the imperialist bourgeoisie to overcome the revolutionary crisis at the end of World War II and to consolidate capitalism. Once the Stalinists had fulfilled their role, they were unceremoniously kicked out of the coalition governments. In those cases, were communist partisans refused to surrender to the Western imperialists (like in Greece), they were denounced and betrayed by the Stalinist bureaucracy.

 

It is ironically that Stalin continued advocating the concept of “peaceful coexistence” … only a few months before the beginning of the imperialist Cold War against the USSR! “Again on 21 December 1946, when Elliott Roosevelt asked Stalin whether he believed it possible for the U.S.A. to live peaceably side by side with 'a Communistic form of Government like the Soviet Union' without mutual interference, Stalin replied that it was not only possible, but vise and entirely within the bounds of realization'. When Henry Wallace sent him an open letter giving proposals for a settlement of American-Soviet differences, Stalin (17 May 1948) urged its acceptance as a basis for agreement, adding that, despite the differences in economic systems and ideologies, 'the coexistence of these systems and the peaceful settlement of differences between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. are not only possible but absolutely necessary in the interests of the universal peace'.[53]

 

With the beginning of the Cold War in 1947, the Stalinist bureaucracy was forced – against their will – to confront imperialism. However, Stalin still claimed that “peaceful coexistence” with capitalism was possible. Such, he said, in the midst of the Korea War. “In a reply to fifty American editors, published on 2 April 1952 - they had asked him: 'On what basis is the coexistence of capitalism and Communism possible?' - Stalin said: The peaceful coexistence of capitalism and Communism is fully possible given the mutual desire to co-operate, readiness to perform obligations which have been assumed, observance of the principle of equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States.' It was also in the presence of Stalin that Georgi Malenkov, in his report at the Nineteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (5 October 1952). had reaffirmed the Soviet attitude to the U.S.A., Britain, France, and other bourgeois States. 'The U.S.S.R. is still ready to co-operate with these States with a view to promoting adherence to peaceful international standards and ensuring a lasting and durable peace.' This was 'based on the premise that the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of capitalism and Communism are quite possible, provided there is a mutual desire to co-operate, readiness to carry out commitments and adherence to the principle of equal rights and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States'. Mr Malenkov set out a programme of practical steps for co-operation, to which we shall return later.[54]

 

Later, Khrushchev and then Brezhnev would put even more emphasis of the need for “peaceful coexistence”. All these repeated statements about “peaceful coexistence” between capitalism and socialism made very clear that the ruling bureaucracy – starting with Stalin himself – had no intention to advance the world revolution but was rather interested in keeping power within their states. At the same time, the bureaucrats were determined to brutally defend their power against their own working class striving for freedom (e.g. in Eastern Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 and in Poland 1980-81).

 

In the end, the Stalinist bureaucracy – having both trying to appease imperialism by its conservative foreign policy as well as suppressing its working class – crumbled and was left to the dustbin of history.

 

10. Serving Two Masters: The Eastern Imperialists as well as Sectors of the Domestic Bourgeoisie

 

No doubt, many activists in Stalinist parties imagine that siding with China and Russia in the Cold War against the Western imperialists or even praising China as a “socialist country” represents a stance of anti-imperialism. As a matter of fact, this is a dangerous delusion. It has happened on various occasions in the history of the workers movement that self-proclaimed Marxists supported an imperialist power in the name of “democracy” or “socialism”. During World War I, socialists in Germany, Britain, France, Russia and other Great Powers rallied to their own ruling class … in the name of “defending the interests of the working class”. Some supported foreign Great Powers. [55] In the 1930s and 1940s, social democrats, Stalinists and centrists advocated support for Western imperialism in the name of “anti-fascism”. German and Austrian reformists became supporters of American and British imperialism against “their fatherland”. Indian Stalinists called the workers and peasants … to join the British army and to serve their colonial masters (except in the period 1939-41 when Britain was the “main enemy”, and Nazi-Germany was an “peace-loving” ally).

 

All these acts of betrayal, of serving the class enemy were committed in the name of “socialism”. In fact, this was the most gross violation of fundamental teachings of the Marxist classics. Lenin and Trotsky characterized such policy of class collaboration with the domestic or foreign ruling class as “social-imperialism”, i.e. a policy which is “socialist” in words and imperialist in deeds.

 

As we have pointed out in our works, siding directly or indirectly with Russia and China in the Cold War with the Western Great Powers is paramount to pro-Eastern social-imperialism. It is a continuation of the policy of reformism in World War I and of social democracy, Stalinism and centrism in World War II.

 

In contrast, Marxists have to defend the independent and international interests of the workers and oppressed. Neither supporting the U.S., Western Europe or Japan, nor China and Russia. Mobilizing against chauvinism and militarism of each and every Great Power. Supporting the liberation struggles of oppressed people – both against Western as well as against Eastern imperialist or their proxies. Utilizing all difficulties of the ruling class in order to advance the revolutionary struggle so that the workers and oppressed can ultimately overthrow it. Fighting against all bourgeois agents inside the workers and popular movement who are serving this or that Great Power. These are, in a very summarized version, the principles of authentic anti-imperialism.

 

We do not intend to deal in more detail with the Stalinists’ politics of pro-Eastern social-imperialism at this point as we done so already in other works. At this place we want to draw attention to a related issue which can be easily overlooked. The Stalinists in Russia, China, Syria and other countries allied with Beijing and Moscow are vulgar social-imperialists, serving their ruling class. In the case of Stalinists in Western countries, things are different. Here these forces are rather “inverted social-imperialists” – as Lenin and Trotsky pointed out. [56] In other words, they do not serve the domestic but a foreign imperialist bourgeoise.

 

What we want to point out at this place is the following. As we said, the Stalinists outside the Russian-Chinese sphere of influence are “inverted social-imperialist” serving the ruling class in Beijing and Moscow. But this is not all. They are also serving the interests of sections of their own, domestic bourgeoisie. Let us briefly explain this in more detail.

 

As it is well known, sections of the European bourgeoisie, of the capitalist class in Brazil, South Africa, India, Japan, and many other countries have close business relations with China and, to a considerable lesser degree, with Russia. Even in the U.S. there is a not too small section of the monopoly bourgeoisie which wishes a continuation of the “good old days” when close and uninterrupted trade relations existed with China. Large sectors of the capitalist class in important semi-colonial countries like Brazil, Argentina, South- and South-East Asian countries, Turkey, South Africa, etc. view Chinese investment and trade as decisive for their prospects. European corporations consider the Chinese market as the most important since it is still expanding (in contrast to North America and Europe). This is bolstered by the fact that China has now surpassed the U.S. as the most important trading partner for the EU. (See Table 10)

 

Table 10. Total Goods: Top Trading Partners of the European Union in 2020 [57]

 

Ranking                                                                                                             In Million Euro                Share (in %)

 

                                External EU Trade with the World                           3,646,078                             100.0

 

1                             China                                                                                   586,737                              16.1

 

2                             USA                                                                                      556,230                              15.3

 

3                             United Kingdom                                                              444,966                                12.2

 

4                             Switzerland                                                                       250,967                                  6.9

 

5                             Russia                                                                                 174,014                                  4.8

 

 

 

This becomes particularly evident if one looks at the response of many states to the well-known Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) of Chinese imperialism – Beijing’s version of the Marshall Plan, so to say. As it is known numerous countries of the South on all continents have joined the BRI initiative. However, in the last years a number of members states of the European Union has also started participating in the BRI. Among these are not only all Eastern European states but also others like Italy, Austria, Portugal, Greece and Cyprus. [58]

 

Here is not the place to analyze all features of the BRI project. For the topic under discussion, it is sufficient to note that large sectors of the bourgeoisie in the semi-colonial countries and also in imperialist states which are in a political alliance with U.S. imperialism – like Japan, South Korea or in Western Europe – have no desire to rupture relations with China (and Russia). The reason for this is neither any anti-imperialist ideas or because of any loyalty towards Beijing but simply because of their own business interests. They can make a good buck by joining large China-led infrastructure projects, by exporting goods to China or importing such from there, by getting Chinese corporations on board as shareholders etc. As we did show above in Table 8 and 9, China is the world’s leading producer and exporter of commodities. Not many capitalists can afford to ignore such an economic power.

 

Hence it is not surprising that leaders of West European imperialism try to find a balance between putting pressure on China via a pro-U.S. aggressive foreign policy, on one hand, and deepening economic relations with Beijing, on the other hand. The current negotiations in the European Parliament and between EU governments about the EU-China investment agreement are a good example form this. While a number of parliamentary deputies oppose this treaty, Merkel and Macron work hard to push it through. Likewise, the leading European Great Powers have joined the US in criticizing China for human rights violation at the latest G7 summit. They also supported Biden’s initiative for a rival infrastructure program to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and agreed to establish a trade and technology council at the subsequent EU-US summit. However, only weeks later, Merkel said she was “willing to actively study and join” China’s own Support for Africa’s Development Partnership Initiative, which seeks to deepen Beijing’s involvement in Africa. [59]

 

In other words, large sectors of Europe’s monopoly capital as well as many capitalists in countries of the South have a direct interest to oppose Washington’s push for a new Cold War. This does not necessarily mean that they would join the China camp. But at least they prefer to remain neutral and do not wish to offend Beijing.

 

For all these reasons, we have to state that while the characterization of the Stalinist, Bolivarian and left-populist forces as pro-Eastern social-imperialist is fully valid, it is not complete. These forces are not only pro-Eastern social-imperialist but also, at the same time, defenders of the interests of a sector of the domestic monopoly bourgeoisie. In short, they serve not one but two capitalist masters!

 

It is this dual role which explains what, at a first glance, seems to be a contradiction. How can parties in a NATO country – like the French PCF or the Spanish PCE – which have been proven loyal governmental parties for the domestic monopoly bourgeoisie, sign an undisguised pro-Chinese statement? The explanation is simple. Sizeable sectors of the imperialist bourgeois of these European countries oppose the U.S. Cold War drive and wish to keep close relations – at least on an economic level – with Beijing.

 

In short, the Stalinist, Bolivarian and left-populist parties in Europe and other pro-Western countries in the South are both – inverted social-imperialist (towards Beijing and Moscow) as well as social-patriots (towards their own bourgeoisie).

 

This is, by the way, an important change in the role of these Stalinist parties compared with the past. In the period of the imperialist Cold War of the West against the USSR and its allies, the Stalinist parties in NATO and pro-Western countries did not follow a social-imperialist policy when they sided with Moscow. They rather defended, albeit in a reformist way, degenerated workers states against the imperialist aggression.

 

Today the situation is completely different. There exist no degenerated workers states any more in the world. China and Russia are not “socialist” but thoroughly capitalist, in fact they have become imperialist Great Powers. Hence, the Stalinist parties are no longer loyal to post-capitalist states (i.e. siding with more progressive force than the imperialist bourgeoisie). Instead, they have degenerated into direct agents of other imperialist Great Powers.

 

11. A Note on the tight-lipped “Trotskyists” (CWI, IMT, ISA)

 

At the end of this essay, we wish to add a brief note on some pseudo-Trotskyist international organization. We talk about the Committee for a Workers International (CWI), led by Peter Taaffe, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), led by Alan Woods, and the Internationalist Socialist Alternative (ISA) which has SA in the U.S. as the strongest section. They all come from the same tradition, the so-called Militant tradition associated with the name of its founder, Ted Grant. Originally, they were all part of the same international tendency – the CWI. However, the IMT was expelled in 1992 and the ISA is the result of another split of the CWI in 2019.

 

It is not possible to criticize the statements of these three organizations for their position on the recent shooting incident between UK and Russia in the Black Sea. It is not possible to do so because none of have published a single document on this important event!

 

Such silence is highly remarkable for three reasons. First, this has been an important event which was widely reported in world media. Second, these organizations are “directly” involved in this conflict since two of them have their “mother sections” in Britain and the third (ISA) has also a sizeable presence in this country. In addition, two of them (IMT and ISA) have also sections in Russia. Thirdly, these are not small sects but organizations with money and a full-time apparatus which are publishing article and statements on their websites on a daily basis.

 

So how can such strange silence be explained? As it can not be because of lack of resources, the reason can only be found in the political fundament of these organizations. And indeed, as the RCIT has demonstrated in various documents, the Grantite tradition never understood the Marxist analysis of imperialism, nor did they accept the program of anti-imperialism and revolutionary defeatism.

 

In 1982, when all were united in the CWI, they refused to call for the defeat of British imperialism in its war of aggression against Argentina. [60] Nor did they do so in later wars against people of the South (Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003). [61] The IMT’s leader Alan Woods even claims wrongly that Lenin would have corrected his program of “revolutionary defeatism” (i.e. that he would have had dropping slogans like “the defeat of your own government is the lesser evil” and “transformation of the imperialist war into civil war”). [62] Such an opportunist softening of the Marxist program of anti-imperialism goes hand in hand with the arch-revisionist conception that a peaceful road to socialism is possible. [63] And since a number of years, they advocate the slogan of a “socialist Israel” on the side of a “socialist Palestine” (CWI, ISA) resp. the slogan of a “Jewish homeland” on the side of a “Palestinian homeland”. In other words, they shamefully adapt to settler-colonialist Zionism and its “achievements” against the Palestinian population. [64]

 

Not only do these forces opportunistically adapt to social-imperialism – be it in the Western metropolises or in Israel. At least the CWI as well as the IMT are also confused – to use a polite formulation – when it comes to the class characterization of China and Russia. As we did show in our book on Great Power rivalry, the CWI and the IMT refuse to characterize the Eastern powers as imperialist. [65]

 

Given such deep-seating tradition of adaption to British social-imperialism as well as theoretical confusion concerning the class character of Russia and China, it is hardly surprising that these organizations prefer to remain silent on such confrontations between Great Powers as the recent one in the Black Sea. This is certainly politically less risky for them than to stick their neck out.

 

12. Conclusions

 

Let us conclude in the form of a few theses which, so it seems to us, shall summarize the main ideas of this essay.

 

1.            China (and Russia) are no “anti-imperialist”, “progressive”, let alone “socialist” states. They are rather imperialist Great Powers which play an important role in the capitalist world economy respectively in world politics.

 

2.            Hence, the new Cold War is not a conflict between reactionary, imperialist powers, on one side, and “progressive” forces on the other side. It is rather the result of the acceleration of the rivalry between several imperialist Great Powers (U.S., China, EU, Russia, and Japan).

 

3.            The two Joint Statements, signed by numerous Stalinist parties, are directed only against the Western imperialist powers. They don’t raise any opposition against China and Russia and one of these statements even suggests that China would be a “socialist” country.

 

4.            Marxists therefore sharply denounce these statements and characterize them as declaration of social-imperialist support for China and Russia.

 

5.            The Stalinist concepts of “multilateralism” and “peaceful “coexistence” are a reactionary illusion. There never has been and there never can be a peaceful, stable global order led by several Great Powers in the period of capitalist decay. There can be no “peaceful “coexistence” – monopolies are inevitable competing against each other for a larger share of the profit mass, and Great Powers are rivalling against each other for more global influence at the cost of others.

 

6.            The Stalinists, Castro-Chavistas and left-populists who side with China and Russia have a dual character as they serve two capitalist masters. Evidently, they are pro-Eastern social-imperialists, agents of the ruling class in Beijing and Moscow. At the same time, they also objectively defend the interests of sectors of the domestic bourgeoisie which have a strong interest in opposing Washington’s Cold War and in keeping friendly relations with the world’s largest producer of capitalist value as well as trade.

 

7.            In contrast, revolutionaries have to oppose all imperialist Great Powers – those in the West as well as those in the East. They are obliged to denounce all forms of militarism, chauvinism as well as sanctions and punitive tariffs. They must not lend support in any form either to their own ruling class or to rivaling imperialist bourgeoisie. Based on the communists’ famous principle “the main enemy is at home“, revolutionaries aim to utilize any conflict in order to weaken and eventually overthrow the ruling class.

 

8.            The struggle against imperialist war and militarism is not an issue separated from other issues of the class struggle. “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means” as Lenin liked to quote Clausewitz. Hence, the most effective struggle against war is the struggle today against each and every ruling class as well as against all Great Powers in order to weaken and eventually overthrow them. Consequently, socialists have to support the liberation struggles of oppressed people against Great Powers resp. their proxies – again the uprisings both against Western as well as against Eastern powers.

 

9.            Following from this, authentic Marxists must energetically oppose those “progressive” forces which support in any way their own or any other imperialist Great Power. Revolutionaries recognize such forces as social-imperialist lackeys and combat their influence within the workers and popular mass organizations.

 

10.          From this follows that it is crucial for Marxists to build a Revolutionary World Party – a party which can organize the international struggle of the workers vanguard against all Great Powers and against all ruling classes. In order to advance the process of building such a body, revolutionaries need to unite as soon as possible in an international organization which is based on program of class independence, anti-imperialism and socialist world revolution.

 

Workers and Oppressed: Fight all Great Powers in East and West!

 

Join the RCIT!

 

 

 

 

 



[1] On two statements on the new Cold War which have been published earlier this year see e.g. Michael Pröbsting: One-sided and Naïve … at Best! A joint call by the friends of Chinese imperialism and the daydreamers of well-meaning global capitalism, 31 March 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/joint-call-by-friends-of-chinese-imperialism-and-the-daydreamers/; by the same author: Stalinist and “Trotskyist” Supporters of Chinese Imperialism under the Fig-Leaf of “Anti-Imperialism”. A commentary on the statement “No to U.S. war threats against China!” by the “United National Antiwar Coalition” in the U.S., 4 April 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/stalinist-and-trotskyist-supporters-of-chinese-imperialism-under-the-fig-leaf-of-anti-imperialism/

[2] See on this our book by Michael Pröbsting: 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/. See also our numerous documents on the Global Trade War which have been collected at a special sub-page on our website: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/. Our latest pamphlet on this issue is by Michael Pröbsting: “A Really Good Quarrel”. US-China Alaska Meeting: The Inter-Imperialist Cold War Continues, 23 March 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/us-china-alaska-meeting-shows-continuation-of-inter-imperialist-cold-war/

[3] The RCIT has published several works which discuss the current historic period of capitalist decay in more detail. See e.g. chapter 2-5 and 14 in Michael Pröbsting: 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, Vienna 2013, http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/; see also a pamphlets by the same author: The Catastrophic Failure of the Theory of “Catastrophism”. On the Marxist Theory of Capitalist Breakdown and its Misinterpretation by the Partido Obrero (Argentina) and its “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International”, 27 May 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-catastrophic-failure-of-the-theory-of-catastrophism/; furthermore we refer to the annual World Perspectives documents which the RCIT has published in the past years: RCIT. In particular see chapter II of World Perspectives 2016: Advancing Counterrevolution and Acceleration of Class Contradictions Mark the Opening of a New Political Phase, 23 January 2016, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-perspectives-2016/.

[4] The RCIT has published numerous documents about capitalism in China. See on this e.g. our above-mentioned book by Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. See also by the same author 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‘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, http://www.thecommunists.net/publications/revcom-number-4; How is it possible that some Marxists still Doubt that China has Become Capitalist? (A Critique of the PTS/FT), 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 (PTS/FT and China). 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/. 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] The RCIT has published numerous documents about capitalism in Russia and its rise to an imperialist power. See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: Russia and China: Neither Capitalist nor Great Powers? A Reply to the PO/CRFI and their Revisionist Whitewashing of Chinese and Russian imperialism, 28 November 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/russia-and-china-neither-capitalist-nor-great-powers-reply-to-po-crfi/; see also several pamphlets by the same author: The Catastrophic Failure of the Theory of “Catastrophism”. On the Marxist Theory of Capitalist Breakdown and its Misinterpretation by the Partido Obrero (Argentina) and its “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International”, 27 May 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-catastrophic-failure-of-the-theory-of-catastrophism/; 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 – A Reply to our Critics, 18 March 2014, in: Revolutionary Communism No. 21, http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/. See various other RCIT documents on this issue at a special sub-page on the RCIT’s website: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/

[6] For the RCIT’s analysis of the skirmish in the Black Sea see the following documents: RCIT: Russia Fires Warning Shots against UK Warship in the Black Sea. Down with Cold Warmongering! No support for any imperialist Great Power – neither UK, US nor Russia! 24 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-fires-warning-shots-against-uk-warship-in-black-sea/; Michael Pröbsting: “Next Time We Will Bomb the Target”. Shooting incident in Black Sea between UK and Russia shows that capitalism in decay is stumbling towards war, 24 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-uk-next-time-we-will-bomb-the-target/; Laurence Humphries: Skirmish in Black Sea: Imperialist Patriotism in the UK, 27 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/imperialist-patriotism-in-uk-on-skirmish-in-black-sea/; Michael Pröbsting: Examples of Pro-Russian Social-Imperialism. British Stalinism and the misnamed “World Socialist Web Site” on the shooting incident in the Black Sea between UK and Russia, 28 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/

[7] Elliot Ackerman and James Stavridis: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, New York, Penguin Press, 2021

[8] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: “Maritime Freedom” – A Keyword of the U.S./NATO Warmongers. A leading representative of the U.S. Navy outlines a militaristic strategy against Russia and China, 5 July 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/maritime-freedom-a-keyword-of-the-u-s-nato-warmongers/

[9] Quoted in an article by the former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar: Anglo-American tripwire traps Russian bear, July 4, 2021 https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/anglo-american-tripwire-traps-russian-bear/

[10] Global Times: ‘Taiwan independence’ means war not empty threat, Editorial, Jan 29, 2021, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1214369.shtml

[11] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, pp. 12-13

[12] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 17

[13] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 12

[14] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 15

[15] See e.g. RCIT: Afghanistan: Good Riddance, Yankees! The Meaning of the U.S. Retreat from Afghanistan and its Consequences for the inter-imperialist Cold War with China, 17 April 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/afghanistan-good-riddance-yankees/

[16] For our programmatic approach on inter-imperialist conflicts see e.g. RCIT: Theses on Revolutionary Defeatism in Imperialist States, 8 September 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/theses-on-revolutionary-defeatism-in-imperialist-states/; see also chapters XVI to XX in the above-mentioned book by Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. See also the German-language essay by the same author: Lenin, die Bolschewiki und ihr Kampf gegen den imperialistischen Krieg. „Umwandlung des imperialistischen Krieges in den Bürgerkrieg“, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/deutsch/lenin-und-der-imperialistische-krieg/

[17] Joint Statement (initiated by the CP USA): The Communist and Workers’ Parties Condemn NATO’s Cold War Rhetoric, 29.6.2021, http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-USA-JOINT-STATEMENT-THE-COMMUNIST-AND-WORKERS-PARTIES-CONDEMN-NATOS-COLD-WAR-RHETORIC/; SolidNet Parties signing: Communist Party of Albania, Communist Party of Australia, Democratic Progressive Tribune-Bahrain, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Brazilian Communist Party, Communist Party of Brazil, New Communist Party of Britain, Columbian Communist Party, Socialist Workers’ Party of Croatia, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Communist Party of Denmark, Communist Party in Denmark, Communist Party of Finland, French Communist Party, German Communist Party, Hungarian Workers’ Party, Tudeh Party of Iran, Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, Communist Party of Ireland, Workers’ Party of Ireland, Party of the Communist Refoundation, Socialist Party of Lithuania, Communist Party of Norway, Philippine Communist Party (PKP-1930), Communist Party of Spain, Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain, Communist Party of Ukraine, Communist Party USA; Other Parties Signing, Communist Party of Aotearoa, Galizan People's Union-UPG, Communist Party of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Proletariat Schweiz

[18] Joint Statement of Communist and Workers’ Parties (initiated by CP of Greece): The peoples must strengthen the struggle against NATO and imperialist plans, 7/1/2021,http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-of-Greece-Joint-Statement-of-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-The-peoples-must-strengthen-the-struggle-against-NATO-and-imperialist-plans/; SolidNet Parties signing: Communist Party of Albania, Armenian Communist Party, Party of Labour of Austria, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Communist Party of Belgium, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Bulgaria, Party of the Bulgarian Communists, Socialist Workers' Party of Croatia, Communist Party of Bohemia &Moravia, Communist Party of Finland, Communist Party of Greece, Hungarian Workers' Party, Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, Tudeh Party of Iran, Workers' Party of Ireland, Socialist movement of Kazakhstan, Communist Party of Mexico, New Communist Party of the Netherlands, Communist Party of Norway, Communist Party of Pakistan, Philippine Communist Party (PKP 1930), Communist Party of Poland, Russian Communist Workers Party - CPSU, New Communist Party of Yugoslavia, Communists of Serbia, Communist Party of the Workers of Spain, Communist Party of Sri Lanka , Communist Party of Swaziland, Communist Party of Sweden, Communist Party of Turkey, Syrian Communist Party, Syrian Communist Party - unified, Communist Party of Ukraine, Union of Communists of Ukraine, , Other Parties signing, Communist Worker’s Party of Finland, COMMUNISTS Revolutionary Party (France), National Association of Communists of France, Pole of Communist Revival in France, Communist Front (Italy), Swiss Communist Party, Party of Communists USA

[19] Facundo Alvaredo, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman: World Inequality Report 2018, p. 9

[20] We have dealt with the increasing number of monopoly capitalists and corporations in China in various works. See e.g. Michael Pröbsting: China is Definitely the Place where You Want to Be (If You are a Billionaire). Following the Latest Report of the Hurun Global Rich List, 8.3.2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-is-definitely-the-place-where-you-want-to-be-if-you-are-a-billionaire/; by the same author: China passes the US on Global Business Ranking for the first time. New data on global corporations reflects China’s rise as an imperialist Great Power, 23 July 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-another-so-called-success-of-the-stalinist-capitalist-regime/

[21] Hurun Global Rich List 2021, 2.3.2021, https://www.hurun.net/en-US/Info/Detail?num=LWAS8B997XUP

[22] Fortune Global 500, August 2020, https://fortune.com/global500/ (the figures for the share is our calculation)

[23] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

[24] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

[25] Felix Richter: These are the top 10 manufacturing countries in the world, World Economic Forum, 25.2.2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/countries-manufacturing-trade-exports-economics/; output measured on a value-added basis in current U.S. dollars.

[26] Alessandro Nicita and Carlos Razo: China: The rise of a trade titan, UNCTAD, 27 April 2021, https://unctad.org/news/china-rise-trade-titan

[27] See Chapter II in our book by Michael Pröbsting: The COVID-19 Global Counterrevolution – What It Is and How to Fight It, RCIT Books, Vienna 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-covid-19-global-counterrevolution/

[28] For more “patriotic” statements of the KKE with sources see e.g. Michael Pröbsting: Stalinist Chauvinism: The Example of the Greek KKE. Is “Defending the Sovereign Rights of Greece” against Turkey and Macedonia Legitimate? Marxist Internationalism versus Bourgeois Social-Chauvinism, 12 November 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-greek-kke-and-stalinist-chauvinism/. For a critical analysis of the KKE see also the book by Michael Pröbsting: Greece: A Modern Semi-Colony. The Contradictory Development of Greek Capitalism, Its Failed Attempts to Become a Minor Imperialist Power, and Its Present Situation as an Advanced Semi-Colonial Country with Some Specific Features (chapter IV.4 Excurse: The KKE and the Class Character of Greece), https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/greece-semi-colony/

[29] Wikipedia: International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meeting_of_Communist_and_Workers%27_Parties. We note that, with two exceptions, delegations of the CCP participated in all annual conferences since 2007.

[30] We have dealt with the CCP on numerous occasions. Our latest article is by Michael Pröbsting: Where are the Workers in the Chinese “Communist” Party? Some interesting findings on the CCP’s class composition according to an official report of the party’s Organization Department, 21 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/where-are-the-workers-in-the-chinese-communist-party/

[31] On the RKRP see e.g. Chapter VIII and XXIV in the above-mentioned book Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry.

[32] Michael Pröbsting: Examples of Pro-Russian Social-Imperialism. British Stalinism and the misnamed “World Socialist Web Site” on the shooting incident in the Black Sea between UK and Russia, 28 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/

[33] The RCIT has published a number of booklets, statements, and articles on the Syrian Revolution that can be accessed on a special sub-section of this website: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/collection-of-articles-on-the-syrian-revolution/. In particular we refer readers to the RCIT call Save the Syrian Revolution!. https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/call-save-the-syrian-revolution/; see also two pamphlets by Michael Pröbsting: Is the Syrian Revolution at its End? Is Third Camp Abstentionism Justified? An essay on the organs of popular power in the liberated area of Syria, on the character of the different sectors of the Syrian rebels, and on the failure of those leftists who deserted the Syrian Revolution, 5 April 2017, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/syrian-revolution-not-dead/; Syria and Great Power Rivalry: The Failure of the „Left“. The bleeding Syrian Revolution and the recent Escalation of Inter-Imperialist Rivalry between the US and Russia – A Marxist Critique of Social Democracy, Stalinism and Centrism, 21 April 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/syria-great-power-rivalry-and-the-failure-of-the-left/. See also by the same author: A Revealing Statistic about Who is Responsible for Killing Civilians in Syria. The latest findings of the Syrian Network for Human Rights for the period from March 2011 to June 2021, 2 July 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/revealing-statistic-about-who-is-responsible-for-killing-civilians-in-syria/

[34] John Bachtell: A new era for building socialism with ‘Chinese characteristics’, June 14, 2018, http://www.cpusa.org/article/a-new-era-for-building-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics/

[35] S e.g. Chapter 13 in the book by Michael Pröbsting: 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, Vienna 2013, http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/.

[36] See e.g. RCIT: Down with France’s Colonial War in Mali! Solidarity with the Resistance! Let’s transform Mali into another Afghanistan for imperialism! 19.1.2013, https://rcitarchive.wordpress.com/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/no-to-france-s-war-in-mali/

[37] See e.g. Michael Pröbsting: France: “Communist” Party fails to Vote in Parliament against Imperialist War in Iraq! 15.1.2015, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/french-pcf-iraq-war/

[38] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: The Second Wave of the COVID-19 Counterrevolution; COVID-19 and the Lockdown Left: The Example of PODEMOS and Stalinism in Spain, 24 March 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/covid-19-lockdown-left-podemos-and-stalinism-in-spain/

[39] See on this e.g. the above-mentioned pamphlet by Michael Pröbsting: “A Really Good Quarrel”. US-China Alaska Meeting: The Inter-Imperialist Cold War Continues.

[40] See on this e.g. RCIT: Down with the Imperialist Trade War between Japan and South Korea! Down with all chauvinist boycott campaigns! Class War instead of Trade War! 19 July 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/trade-war-between-japan-and-south-korea/

[41] See on this e.g. RCIT: China-India Border Conflict: Down with Chauvinist Warmongering on Both Sides! Support the national rights of the Kashmiri and the Nepalese people! 28 May 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-india-border-conflict-down-with-chauvinist-warmongering-on-both-sides/; Michael Pröbsting: The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences. What are the background and the nature of the tensions between China and India in the Sikkim border region? What should be the tactical conclusions for Socialists and Activists of the Liberation Movements? 18 August 2017, Revolutionary Communism No. 71, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-india-rivalry/

[42] See on this e.g. RCIT: Yemen: Another Humiliating Blow for the Saudi Aggressors! Yemeni popular resistance eliminates three pro-Saudi military brigades, 02.10.2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/yemen-another-humiliating-blow-for-the-saudi-aggressors/

[43] See on this e.g. RCIT: Armenia-Azerbaijan: A New War in the South Caucasus. Reactionary regimes in crisis wage a chauvinist war against each other. Russia’s intervention would transform it into an imperialist war. 30 September 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/new-war-in-the-south-caucasus/

[44] See on this e.g. RCIT: Egypt’s Dictator Sisi Threatens to Invade Libya. Defeat the counterrevolutionary bandit Haftar and the powers behind him! 24 June 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/egypt-s-dictator-sisi-threatens-to-invade-libya/

[45] See e.g. Leon Trotsky: The Third International After Lenin. The Draft Program of the Communist International: A Criticism of Fundamentals (1928), Pathfinder Press, New York 1970; see also by the same author: The Revolution Betrayed (1936), Pathfinder Press 1972; see also Michael Pröbsting: Capitalism Today and the Law of Uneven Development: The Marxist Tradition and its Application in the Present Historic Period, in: Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, Vol. 44, Issue 4, 2016, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03017605.2016.1236483

[46] On Stalinism see e.g. the book published by our predecessor organization League for the Revolutionary Communist International: The Degenerated Revolution: The Origin and Nature of the Stalinist States, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/stalinism-and-the-degeneration-of-the-revolution/; see also Chapter II in Michael Pröbsting: Cuba’s Revolution Sold Out? The Road from Revolution to the Restoration of Capitalism, August 2013, RCIT Books, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/cuba-s-revolution-sold-out/

[47] Leon Trotsky: The Permanent Revolution (1929), Pathfinder Press, New York 1969, p. 133

[48] See Leon Trotsky: History of the Russian Revolution (1932), Haymarket Books, Chicago 2008, Appendix II: (Socialism in a Separate Country), pp. 890-913

[49] V. I. Lenin: Speech in Reply to the Debate on the Agrarian Question (Speech at the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. April 10 (23) - April 25 (May 8), 1906); in: LCW Vol. 10, p. 280

[50] J. V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), (December 1927), in: J. V. Stalin Works Vol. 10, August-December 1927, p. 296

[51] Quoted in Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 43. Since this book has been written by Stalinist supporter of the USSR who advocates the concept of “peaceful coexistence” and since this book has been written in 1955, there is no reason to doubt the accurate presentation of the Stalin quotes. Let us note in passing that historians have to use such sources as the Stalinist bureaucracy never published the complete works of Stalin. The last official volume ends in 1934. (Some Maoists published an additional but very incomplete volume in the 1970s, covering the years 1934-40.) Furthermore, even these works are incomplete. Numerous embarrassing statements of Stalin were left out. The bureaucrats could not solve the problem that people who were praised by Stalin in a public speech in one year, were killed in the next year for being a “fascist agent of Hitler”. Likewise, what to do with articles praising the anti-fascist democracy of France when they were following with appraisals of “peace-loving” Hitler-Germany, which were later, again, superseded with public speeches about the ever-lasting friendship between the USSR and British, which were later …. The only possible solution to the eclectic zigzags was … to stop the publication of Stalin works. Finally, since the Soviet bureaucracy later distanced itself from Stalin and the “period of the personality cult”, they had an additional reason to let Stalin’s “works” (if one shall use such a polite word) remain buried. By the way: the same is true with the works of Mao Zedong. Despite the fact that he was a leader of the CCP from the later 1920s onwards and a leader of the Chinese state until his death in 1976, … there exist only five volumes of Selected Works! Did the Chinese state not have the resources to publish the complete works of its founder? Was Mao not important enough for such an effort? Well, draw your own conclusions!

[52] Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard (March 1, 1936), in: J. V. Stalin Works Vol. 14, 1934-40, p. 144

[53] Quoted in Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 49

[54] Quoted in Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 50

[55] We have dealt with this in more detail in our above-mentioned book by Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. See also the above-mentioned pamphlet 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.

[56] See e.g. from a resolution of the 1936 world congress of the Trotskyists: The German Stalinists in emigration have become inverted social-patriots, transforming themselves from nationalist champions against the Versailles Peace Treaty to defenders of the status quo created by this very same treaty. It follows from the present position of the German Stalinist that they will transform themselves into real social-patriots as soon as the fascist dictatorship in Germany is replaces by another type of bourgeois regime.” (The Evolution of the Comintern. Resolution of the First Conference for the Fourth International in July 1936, in: Documents of the Fourth International, New York 1973, p. 127)

[57] European Commission: European Union, Trade in goods with China, 2 June 2021, p. 9

[58] Chris Devonshire-Ellis: European Union Member States Who Joined China’s Belt And Road Initiative Are Seeing Their Exports Rise Faster By Nearly 5% More Than Those Who Have Not, Nov 20, 2020, https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/11/20/european-union-member-states-who-joined-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-are-seeing-their-exports-rise-faster-by-nearly-5-more-than-those-who-have-not/

[59] Finbarr Bermingham: Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron throw support behind EU-China investment deal, Beijing says, 5 Jul, 2021 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3139925/xi-jinping-angela-merkel-and-emmanuel-macron-throw-support?utm_source=rss_feed

[60] See on this e.g. chapter 13 in our above-mentioned book The Great Robbery of the South.

[61] Ibid

[62] See on this e.g. Chapter XXVIII in the above-mentioned book Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry.

[63] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: Five days that shook Britain but didn’t wake up the left. The bankruptcy of the left during the August uprising of the oppressed in Britain: Its features, its roots and the way forward, in: Revolutionary Communism No. 1, pp. 30-31 (September 2011), http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/britain-left-and-the-uprising/sp-and-committee-for-a-workersinternational

[64] On the RCIT’s critique of the CWI reactionary support for an Israeli state see Yossi Schwarz: Occupied Palestine / Israel: Dead End for the Two-State Solution. The Palestinian Liberation Struggle and the CWI’s Centrist Adaptation to Zionism, 12.11.2015, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/palestine-and-cwi/; Michael Pröbsting: The CWI’s “Socialist” Zionism and the Palestinian Liberation Struggle. A Reply from the RCIT, 15.9.2014, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/cwi-and-israel/

[65] A leader of the IMT once wrote us and protested against our criticism. He referred to an article in which they indeed called China “imperialist”. However, this was rather an eclectic gaffe as in all central documents (like their annual world perspectives), the IMT calls only the Western Great Powers as “imperialist” but not their Eastern rivals.

 

Siervos de dos amos

El estalinismo y la nueva guerra fría entre las grandes potencias imperialistas de Oriente y Occidente

Un folleto (con 10 tablas) de Michael Pröbsting, Secretario Internacional de la Corriente Comunista Revolucionaria Internacional (CCRI), 10 de julio de 2021, www.thecommunists.net

Download
Servants of Two Masters_SPA.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document 542.2 KB

Contenido

 

Introducción

1. La nueva guerra fría interimperialista

2. Opinión sobre la fuerza militar de las grandes potencias

3. El punto principal de ambas declaraciones: ponerse del lado del imperialismo chino y ruso

 

4. Fantasías estalinistas destrozadas a la luz de la realidad: el auge del imperialismo chino

5. La "crítica" del KKE y sus lazos fraternos con el PC chino

6. Junto a los sirvientes de Assad el carnicero: ¿quién firmó la declaración conjunta iniciada por el KKE?

 

7. El club de fans de Xi: signatarios de la declaración conjunta iniciada por CPUSA

8. El concepto de multilateralismo y convivencia pacífica: una ilusión reaccionaria

9. "Socialismo en un solo país": las raíces históricas del concepto estalinista de "convivencia pacífica"

 

10. Al servicio de dos amos: los imperialistas orientales y los sectores de la burguesía doméstica

11. Una nota sobre los "trotskistas" de labios cerrados (CWI, IMT, ISA)

12. Conclusiones

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

PARTE 1

 

Introducción

 

Desde principios de julio, circulan dos Declaraciones Conjuntas sobre la nueva Guerra Fría interimperialista que ya han sido firmadas por varios partidos estalinistas y ex estalinistas. Si bien estas no son las primeras declaraciones de tales fuerzas sobre la reciente aceleración de la rivalidad entre las grandes potencias, ambas declaraciones son muy notables, tanto por su contenido como por sus signatarios. [1]

 

Sin duda, estas dos declaraciones han sido provocadas por la reciente escalada de la Guerra Fría entre las Grandes Potencias imperialistas, entre los imperialistas occidentales (EE.UU., Europa Occidental y Japón), por un lado, y China y Rusia, por el otro. Naturalmente, la relación entre los estados dentro de estos dos campos no está exenta de conflictos de intereses y fricciones. Pero en este momento, y en el futuro previsible, el eje principal de la rivalidad interimperialista es entre estos dos campos. [2]

 

Antes de presentar las ideas principales de estas declaraciones estalinistas y discutir sus problemas, comenzaremos con una descripción general del análisis marxista de la rivalidad entre las grandes potencias, su naturaleza y su papel en la política mundial. Además, daremos un resumen del programa revolucionario sobre este tema.

 

Instamos a todos los revolucionarios a discutir nuestras conclusiones. Consideramos que el acuerdo sobre la respuesta programática a la rivalidad interimperialista es crucial para los marxistas, ya que este es un tema clave de la política mundial en el período actual. Nos alegra que nuestros compañeros argentinos de Convergencia Socialista, con quienes la CCRI está en un Comité de Enlace como marco para avanzar hacia la unidad revolucionaria, adopten el mismo enfoque antiimperialista y de principios.

 

1. La nueva guerra fría interimperialista

 

La CCRI ha demostrado en sus trabajos que este proceso de rivalidad acelerada entre las grandes potencias imperialistas está impulsado, por nombrar el factor más fundamental, por la decadencia del capitalismo que ha provocado depresión económica y desestabilización del orden político global. [3] Como resultado de esto, experimentamos desde hace algún tiempo el declive del hegemón del imperialismo desde hace mucho tiempo: los Estados Unidos. Paralelamente, surgieron nuevas grandes potencias, en primer lugar, China [4] y Rusia. [5]

 

A medida que se acelera el proceso de decadencia capitalista, también se acelera la decadencia de Estados Unidos y la rivalidad entre todas las grandes potencias. Como resultado, una nueva Guerra Fría entre los campos imperialistas comenzó en los últimos años. Es inevitable, como hemos visto en las últimas semanas con el incidente de los disparos en el Mar Negro, que tal escalada, tarde o temprano, resultará en una guerra interimperialista en toda regla. [6]

 

De hecho, los principales representantes del "Complejo Militar-Industrial" de Estados Unidos, como el almirante James G. Stavridis, autor de "2034: Una novela de la próxima guerra mundial", han predicho públicamente una guerra de este tipo entre las grandes potencias en un contexto no muy distante. futuro. [7] La carrera armamentista mundial, el creciente número de las llamadas "Operaciones de Libertad de Navegación" por parte de las potencias occidentales, donde su armada ingresa a territorio marítimo controlado por sus rivales, las demandas cada vez más agresivas de Rusia y China de controlar exclusivamente ciertos mares ( por ejemplo, el reclamo de Rusia de controlar el acceso al Mar de Azov o el reclamo de China sobre el Mar de China Meridional (o el Mar del Este como lo llama Vietnam) - todos estos pasos están destinados a provocar enfrentamientos militares. [8]

 

Los rivales de Estados Unidos no parecen estar demasiado preocupados por tales perspectivas. Después de la última escaramuza en el Mar Negro entre el HMS Defender británico y las fuerzas rusas, el presidente de Rusia, Putin, comentó en una entrevista "que incluso si Rusia hubiera hundido el buque de guerra británico, "los que hicieron esto" no habrían ido a la guerra, ya que Sabría que “no podrían ganar una guerra como esa” contra Rusia.” [9]

 

Y los gobiernos de China, en palabras de Wu Qian, portavoz del Ministerio de Defensa Nacional de China, dejaron en claro que una declaración de independencia de Taiwán “significa guerra”. The Global Times, el portavoz en inglés del régimen de Beijing, agregó intencionadamente en un editorial: “Se debe enviar un mensaje a Taiwán y Estados Unidos: no juzguen mal ni subestimen la determinación y voluntad de China continental de defender su integridad territorial y de castigar severamente los actos imprudentes de las fuerzas de la “independencia de Taiwán”. Si la isla de Taiwán y los EE. UU. Consideran los actos de última hora de la anterior administración estadounidense como un nuevo punto de partida de sus lazos y continúan promoviendo la "independencia de Taiwán", es predecible que se desencadenarán conflictos militares en el Estrecho de Taiwán. (…) El continente tiene abundante poder para hacerlo. Los 1.400 millones de chinos están especialmente unidos en la defensa de su integridad territorial. "Independencia de Taiwán" significa guerra; esta no es solo la declaración del Ejército Popular de Liberación, sino también la actitud común de todo el pueblo chino.” [10]

 

2. Opinión sobre la fuerza militar de las grandes potencias

 

Estas no son amenazas vacías, ya que estos imperialistas saben que son capaces de lanzar huelgas y contraataques contra sus rivales. Como se puede ver en la Tabla 1-3, Estados Unidos fue y sigue siendo la mayor potencia militar, pero Rusia no se queda atrás y China se está poniendo al día. El renombrado Instituto Internacional de Investigación para la Paz de Estocolmo (SIPRI) observa: “El gasto chino ha aumentado durante 26 años consecutivos, la racha más larga de aumentos ininterrumpidos de cualquier país en la base de datos de gastos militares del SIPRI.” [11]

 

Tabla 1. Fuerzas nucleares mundiales, 2020 [12]

 

País                                       Ojivas desplegadas         Otras ojivas       Inventario total

 

Estados Unidos                 1.800                                     3.750                     5.550

 

Rusia                                    1.625                                     4.630                     6.255

 

Reino Unido                         120                                        105                         225

 

Francia                                  280                                          10                          290

 

China                                      -                                             350                         350

 

 

 

Tabla 2. Estados Unidos y China como los mayores gastos militares del mundo [13]

 

                                               Gasto militar                                    Crecimiento del gasto militar

 

                                               en 2020 (en miles de                        2011-2020 (en%)

 

                                               millones de dólares)

 

US                                         $ 778 mil millones                           -10%

 

China                                   $ 252 mil millones                           + 76%

 

 

 

Tabla 3. Los diez principales exportadores de armas del mundo, 2016-20 [14]

 

Ranking                Exportador                         Participación Global(%)

 

1                             EE.UU.                                  37%

 

2                             Rusia                                    20%

 

3                             Francia                                 8,2%

 

4                             Alemania                            5,5%

 

5                             China                                   5,2%

 

 

 

Estos desarrollos reflejan bien la dinámica general de las potencias imperialistas que la CCRI ha señalado repetidamente. El imperialismo estadounidense sigue siendo una fuerza poderosa, pero básicamente vive de sus éxitos pasados. Como el pasado hegemón del orden global (el autoproclamado "Policía del Mundo"), está desesperadamente sobrecargado. El reciente giro dramático en la política exterior de Washington - la apresurada retirada de Afganistán (otro "momento Saigón" [15]), la retirada de la mayoría de las fuerzas de Oriente Medio y Somalia para que pueda concentrar sus fuerzas en la lucha contra el ascenso de China refleja los profundos problemas y contradicciones del imperialismo estadounidense.

 

Es decir, vivimos en un período histórico dominado por guerras y revoluciones (y, en consecuencia, también contrarrevoluciones). Las cuestiones del militarismo, el chovinismo y las guerras interimperialistas se encuentran entre las cuestiones clave de este período. Es imposible que los marxistas encuentren una orientación correcta sin comprender la naturaleza imperialista de todas las grandes potencias (es decir, tanto las de Occidente como las de Oriente) y, en consecuencia, el carácter reaccionario de cualquier conflicto entre estos Estados.

 

Como ha elaborado la CCRI en sus trabajos, el único programa legítimo de los marxistas sobre este tema es la estrategia del Derrotismo Revolucionario, tal como la han defendido Lenin y los bolcheviques. Este es el único programa que permite a los socialistas adoptar una línea antiimperialista e internacionalista consistente hacia la rivalidad entre las grandes potencias. Incluye una oposición constante contra todas las grandes potencias imperialistas, es decir, contra Estados Unidos, China, Europa Occidental, Rusia y Japón.

 

En estos estados, los socialistas están obligados a denunciar todas las formas de militarismo, chovinismo, así como sanciones y aranceles punitivos. No deben prestar apoyo en tales medidas ni por su propia clase dominante ni por una burguesía imperialista rival. Basado en el famoso principio de los comunistas "el enemigo principal está en casa", los revolucionarios pretenden utilizar cualquier conflicto para debilitar y eventualmente derrocar a la clase dominante (o, para usar las palabras de Lenin, trabajar hacia la “transformación de la guerra imperialista en guerra civil”).

 

A partir de esto, los auténticos marxistas deben oponerse enérgicamente a aquellas fuerzas “progresistas” que apoyan de alguna manera a la propia Gran Potencia imperialista oa cualquier otra. Los revolucionarios reconocen a esas fuerzas como lacayos socialimperialistas y combaten su influencia dentro de los trabajadores y las organizaciones populares de masas. [16]

 

3. El punto principal de ambas declaraciones: ponerse del lado del imperialismo chino y ruso

 

Abordemos ahora los puntos principales de las dos declaraciones estalinistas recientemente publicadas. Uno ha sido iniciado por el Partido Comunista de los Estados Unidos (CPUSA) y firmado por 31 partidos, el otro por el Partido Comunista de Grecia (KKE) que ha sido firmado por 43 partidos. (Consulte las notas a pie de página respectivas para obtener una lista de estas partes)

 

Las partes principales de la declaración iniciada por CPUSA son: "Estados Unidos, el líder de facto de la alianza de la OTAN, ha dejado claro que sus intereses radican en iniciar una “nueva Guerra Fría” centrada en la propaganda anti-china y anti-comunista. Esta es una amenaza para todos los trabajadores del mundo. Desde el infame “Pivote hacia Asia” bajo el presidente Barack Obama, ha quedado claro que la élite capitalista estadounidense ha visto los crecientes éxitos y el poder de la República Popular China como una amenaza para su orden mundial unipolar y neoliberal. Durante la administración de Donald Trump, el gobierno de Estados Unidos se volvió cada vez más agresivo en sus políticas anti-China y anti-socialistas y muchos comenzaron a hablar de una “nueva Guerra Fría”. (…) ¿Por qué el país más grande del mundo saliendo de la pobreza constituye una amenaza para la seguridad de las potencias de la OTAN? La respuesta es que no es así. Sin embargo, constituye una amenaza para la hegemonía estadounidense y las ganancias capitalistas. Tanto China como su aliado estratégico Rusia, se encuentran rodeados por todos lados por cientos de bases militares estadounidenses y de la OTAN. A pesar de las promesas de no expandirse a Europa del Este, la OTAN se ha expandido continuamente cada vez más cerca de las fronteras de Rusia y está ayudando a las fuerzas fascistas antirrusas en Ucrania mientras usa sanciones económicas para castigar al pueblo de Rusia. No se puede permitir que el mundo descienda a otra Guerra Fría anticomunista.” [17]

 

Las partes principales de la declaración iniciada por el KKE son: “Los Partidos Comunista y Obrero declaran alto y claro que denuncian los planes agresivos de la organización imperialista de la OTAN, que se están intensificando tras su reciente Cumbre. (…) Así, “OTAN 2030” constituye la escalada de agresión, una preparación para la guerra y una prueba de una feroz competencia con Rusia y China. El cerco militar de Rusia, los ataques contra China e Irán, el anuncio de un primer ataque nuclear y el gigantesco ejercicio "DEFENDER-Europe 21" refutan cualquier afirmación falsa sobre "la paz y la seguridad de los pueblos". Los trabajadores y los demás estratos populares no necesitan una llamada "nueva Guerra Fría", ni planes, intervenciones y guerras imperialistas en el sudeste asiático, África, América Latina, Asia central, la región del Cáucaso, el Mar Negro, el sudeste mediterráneo, Oriente Medio y otros lugares. (…) Tienen el poder de luchar contra los planes peligrosos y de fortalecer la lucha en todos los países contra la OTAN y cualquier tipo de planes imperialistas que masacren a los pueblos; contra las bases militares y cualquier tipo de armas de destrucción masiva que posean los imperialistas." [18]

 

Si bien las dos declaraciones tienen algunos matices diferentes (de los que trataremos más adelante), comparten el punto principal: la Guerra Fría no tiene un carácter interimperialista. Sólo hay un campo imperialista que es la OTAN, es decir, las grandes potencias de América del Norte y Europa Occidental. Estas son, según las Declaraciones Conjuntas Estalinistas, las únicas fuerzas responsables del militarismo y el impulso bélico imperialista. En contraste, China y Rusia no se caracterizan como “imperialistas”, todo lo contrario, una de las dos declaraciones está llena de elogios para la clase dominante de Beijing. La conclusión de estas dos declaraciones es bastante obvia: dado que solo un campo (las potencias occidentales) es imperialista, los estalinistas abogan por el apoyo al otro campo, supuestamente antiimperialista (o al menos "no imperialista"), es decir, a China y Rusia.

 

Como puede ver el lector, la declaración iniciada por CPUSA es particularmente franca en su valoración de China (y Rusia). La agresión de la OTAN contra China se caracteriza no solo como "imperialista" sino también como "anticomunista" y "antisocialista". Asimismo, según los estalinistas, el ascenso de China "constituye una amenaza" para el "orden mundial unipolar y neoliberal", así como para las "ganancias capitalistas".

 

¡Son afirmaciones ridículas! China es un país "socialista" o "comunista" sólo de nombre. De hecho, es un estado capitalista con una fuerte burguesía monopolista. Como hemos analizado con mucho detalle el capitalismo chino en varios trabajos (ver las referencias en la nota a pie de página respectiva), nos limitamos en este lugar a señalar algunos hechos que derriban el mito sobre el “socialismo” en China.

PARTE 2

 

4. Fantasías estalinistas destrozadas a la luz de la realidad: el auge del imperialismo chino

 

De hecho, la desigualdad social en China se ha acelerado drásticamente desde la introducción de las reformas de mercado. En la actualidad, según el Informe sobre la desigualdad mundial 2018, la proporción del ingreso nacional total representada por el 10% de los que más ganan es del 41% en China, más grande que en la Europa imperialista (37%). [19]

 

Según el último número de Hurun Global Rich List, con sede en China, China tenía la mayor proporción de multimillonarios mundiales "conocidos". (Ver Tabla 4) Vemos la misma imagen cuando se trata de las corporaciones capitalistas líderes a nivel mundial. Según el último número de Fortune Global 500, China se ha convertido en el número uno también en esta categoría. (Ver Tabla 5) [20]

 

Tabla 4. China y EE. UU. Encabezan la lista mundial de ricos de Hurun en 2021 [21]

 

                                               2021                      Proporción de multimillonarios globales "conocidos" 2021

 

China                                    1058                      32,8%

 

Estados Unidos                    696                      21,6%

 

 

 

Tabla 5. Los 10 países principales con la clasificación de empresas de Fortune Global 500 (2020) [22]

 

Posición               País                                                       Empresas             Proporción (en%)

 

1                             China (sin Taiwán)                           124                         24,8%

 

2                             Estados Unidos                                121                         24,2%

 

3                             Japón                                                    53                          10,6%

 

4                             Francia                                                 31                           6,2%

 

5                             Alemania                                             27                           5,4%

 

 

 

Por lo tanto, instituciones respetadas tanto en China como en Occidente reconocen que China es el hogar de una gran cantidad de monopolios capitalistas y multimillonarios. Entonces, si existe "socialismo" en China, es sólo "socialismo" para los ricos, ¡pero no para las masas populares!

 

¡¿Cómo diablos pueden los estalinistas fantasear con la idea de que China constituiría una "amenaza para las ganancias capitalistas"?! Bueno, los monopolios chinos podrían constituir una amenaza para las ganancias de las corporaciones estadounidenses ... ¡porque ellas mismas obtienen muchas ganancias!

 

Las afirmaciones de los estalinistas de que China constituye una amenaza para el "orden mundial unipolar y neoliberal" reflejan otro mito. De hecho, no existe un "orden mundial unipolar". Hubo un período, históricamente corto, desde 1991 hasta finales del 2000 en el que existió un "orden mundial unipolar" como Estados Unidos era el hegemón absoluto. Entre 1945 y 1991, la política mundial fue moldeada por la Guerra Fría entre los imperialistas occidentales y la Unión Soviética (y otros estados obreros burocráticos estalinistas). Sin embargo, en general, el capitalismo moderno se caracteriza por la existencia de varias grandes potencias que rivalizan entre sí.

 

En cualquier caso, con el ascenso de China (y también Rusia), ya no existe un "orden mundial unipolar", ¡al menos no en nuestro universo! Las tablas 6 y 7 demuestran el cambio masivo de poder económico de los viejos estados imperialistas hacia China que ha tenido lugar desde principios de este siglo.

 

Tabla 6. Participación de Estados Unidos, Europa occidental y China en la producción industrial mundial, 2000 y 2015 [23]

 

                                                               Participación en la producción industrial global

 

                                                               2000                      2015

 

Estados Unidos                                25,1%                    17,7%

 

Europa occidental                           12,1%                    9,2%

 

China                                                   6,5%                      23,6%

 

 

 

Tabla 7. Participación de Estados Unidos y China en el comercio mundial, 2001 y 2016 [24]

 

                                                               Participación en el comercio mundial

 

                                                               2001                      2016

 

Estados Unidos                                 15,1%                    11,4%

 

China                                                   4.0%                      11.5%

 

 

 

Según las últimas cifras, el liderazgo de China en términos de fabricación mundial, el corazón de la producción de valor capitalista global, ha aumentado aún más. Hoy representa el 28,7% de la producción manufacturera mundial. Estados Unidos ocupa el segundo lugar con un 16,8%. (Ver Tabla 8)

 

Tabla 8. Los diez países principales por participación en la producción manufacturera mundial en 2019 [25]

 

Participación en la producción manufacturera mundial

 

China                                   28,7%

 

EE.UU.                                 16,8%

 

Japón                                    7.5%

 

Alemania                            5,3%

 

India                                     3,1%

 

Corea del Sur                     3,0%

 

Italia                                     2,1%

 

Francia                                 1,9%

 

Reino Unido                      1,8%

 

Indonesia                            1,6%

 

 

Asimismo, China se ha consolidado como la nación líder en el comercio mundial. En la Tabla 9 vemos que la participación de China en las exportaciones mundiales (14,7%) es mucho mayor que la del número 2, Estados Unidos (8,1%). Este es aún más el caso si se suma la cifra de Hong Kong a la de China.

 

Tabla 9. Principales países por participación en las exportaciones mundiales en 2020 [26]

 

Participación de las exportaciones mundiales de bienes (%), principales economías, 2020

 

China (incluido Hong Kong)                       14,7% (17,8%)

 

Estados Unidos                                                8,1%

 

Alemania                                                           7,8%

 

Holanda                                                             3,8%

 

Japón                                                                   3,6%

 

Corea del Sur                                                    2,9%

 

Francia                                                                2,8%

 

Italia                                                                     2,8%

 

Bélgica                                                                 2,4%

 

 

 

Tampoco se puede hablar de un "orden mundial unipolar" en la política mundial. Observe la creciente influencia de China y Rusia en la mayoría de las regiones del mundo. En algunos casos, Rusia incluso ha enviado a sus militares (Siria) o sus mercenarios (Libia) al extranjero para apoyar a sus aliados.

 

La otra caracterización del orden mundial -"neoliberal"- también es cada vez más errónea. China nunca siguió una concepción neoliberal en su política. Rusia tampoco. Ambos se han caracterizado más bien por un régimen de regulación estatal-capitalista. Sin embargo, como hemos analizado con más detalle en nuestro libro sobre la contrarrevolución del COVID-19, recientemente ha habido un cambio decisivo también en los países imperialistas occidentales, donde los gobiernos se están alejando del neoliberalismo hacia una intervención keynesiana más capitalista de Estado. [27] Incluso el presidente de los Estados Unidos, Biden, intenta implementar programas de infraestructura pública masivos. Como han explicado los marxistas una y otra vez, el neoliberalismo siempre fue solo una de las varias opciones de la política capitalista. Otros modelos con más intervención capitalista de estado han existido a lo largo de la historia del capitalismo moderno (ver, por ejemplo, intervenciones capitalistas de estado en los estados fascistas en la década de 1930, el New Deal de Estados Unidos en el mismo período, la política keynesiana en Occidente después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial hasta principios de la década de 1970).

 

Es característico de varios reformistas, estalinistas y castro-chavistas identificar solo al “neoliberalismo” como enemigo de la clase trabajadora. Esto ayudará a evitar luchar por una auténtica política anticapitalista y, al mismo tiempo, a justificar su política de apoyo a la otra facción supuestamente “antineoliberal” de la burguesía. En este contexto, vale la pena llamar la atención sobre las siguientes oraciones en la declaración iniciada por CPUSA: “Algunos podrían haber esperado que, con la elección de un nuevo presidente, Estados Unidos podría volverse menos hostil hacia la República Popular China (PRC), pero ahora estarían muy decepcionados. En muchos sentidos, la política exterior de la presidencia de Biden ha aumentado la hostilidad hacia China y su mayor aliado estratégico, Rusia.” ¡Esto es una burla involuntaria de sí mismo ya que el CPUSA ha estado entre esas fuerzas que hicieron campaña con entusiasmo para votar por Biden en las últimas elecciones presidenciales!

 

5. La "crítica" del KKE y sus lazos fraternos con el PC chino

 

La declaración iniciada por el KKE es más cautelosa al elogiar el "socialismo" de China. Esto no es causado por ningún principio antiimperialista por parte de la dirección del KKE. De hecho, como hemos señalado en el pasado, el socialpatriotismo burgués está profundamente arraigado en el ADN político del KKE. A pesar de caracterizar a Grecia como un país imperialista, el KKE, a través de su secretario general, Dimitris Koutsoumbas, anunció en una manifestación pública en 2018: “Nosotros, los comunistas, como siempre lo hemos hecho en nuestra historia de un siglo, estaremos en primera fila defendiendo nuestra integridad territorial y nuestros derechos soberanos. Estamos haciendo esto para que cualquier intruso extranjero que se atreva a atacar Grecia sea aniquilado.” [28]

 

Por tanto, la postura crítica del KKE hacia China no se basa en un programa antiimperialista sino, como hemos señalado en el pasado, en su experiencia práctica y de primera mano con los capitalistas chinos. Después de que COSCO, una de las grandes corporaciones estatales de China, se hiciera cargo de partes del Puerto del Pireo, sus gerentes tomaron rápidamente medidas para prohibir todas las actividades sindicales. Como PAME, la corriente sindical estalinista, tiene fuertes raíces entre los estibadores, se vio muy afectada por estas brutales medidas capitalistas.

 

Sin embargo, tales “diferencias” no impiden que la dirección del KKE invite a delegaciones del Partido Comunista de China a la “Reunión Internacional de Partidos Comunistas y Obreros”. Estas son las conferencias internacionales anuales de partidos estalinistas que han sido iniciadas por el KKE y que han llevado a la formación de la red internacional flexible llamada SolidNet. [29] Entonces, vemos, la dirección del KKE podría criticar al PCCh, pero aún lo considera como un partido fraterno y no, como hacen los marxistas, como un enemigo de la clase trabajadora. [30]

 

6. Junto a los sirvientes de Assad el carnicero: ¿quién firmó la declaración conjunta iniciada por el KKE?

 

El significado de las dos declaraciones no solo radica en su contenido sino también en sus signatarios. Aquí, vale la pena señalar los siguientes hechos. Primero, como ya sugerimos anteriormente, no se debe exagerar la relevancia de los diferentes matices en las dos declaraciones, ya que comparten la oposición exclusiva contra las potencias imperialistas occidentales. Este carácter básico común de estas declaraciones también se hace evidente por el hecho mismo de que 12 partes han firmado tanto la una como la otra. (Consulte la lista de signatarios en la nota a pie de página correspondiente).

 

Hay varias características notables en la lista de signatarios. Pasemos primero a la declaración iniciada por el KKE. Entre los signatarios hay solo unos pocos partidos importantes. Estos son, además del propio KKE, el Partido Comunista de Bohemia y Moravia (KSCM), que obtuvo más del 10% en las elecciones en casi todas las elecciones nacionales en las últimas tres décadas.

 

Otros partidos son más pequeños en el campo electoral, pero aún juegan un cierto papel en el movimiento laboral nacional. Entre ellos se encuentra el Partido Comunista de los Trabajadores de Rusia (RKRP). Si bien este partido es más pequeño que el KPRF patriótico-burgués de Gennady Ziuganov, todavía tiene algunas fuerzas. Sin embargo, como mostramos en nuestro libro sobre la rivalidad de las grandes potencias, este partido toma una posición social-patriótica en defensa de su “patria” imperialista. [31]

 

Otra fuerza digna de mención es el Partido Comunista de Gran Bretaña (CPB). Si bien no juega ningún papel en la política electoral, tiene cierta influencia en el movimiento obrero a través de su diario "Morning Star", así como a través de su papel destacado en la alianza "Stop the War". Sin embargo, como demostramos recientemente en otro ensayo, este partido es un excelente ejemplo del estalinismo en su peor momento. Es un admirador desvergonzado del imperialismo chino, así como de la notoria tiranía de Assad el carnicero. [32]

 

Esto nos lleva a los dos últimos signatarios dignos de mención, dos partidos cuya sola presencia deja en claro el carácter socialimperialista pro-ruso de la Declaración Conjunta iniciada por el KKE: el Partido Comunista Sirio y el Partido Comunista Sirio, unidos. Como es bien sabido, estos dos partidos han sido parte del régimen de Assad durante muchos años, que actúa como una marioneta del imperialismo ruso. Por tanto, son cómplices de la guerra genocida contra el pueblo sirio. [33] ¡No se equivoquen, cualquier declaración que tenga los signatarios de tales partidos "comunistas" sirios tiene el olor pútrido de los servidores probados de un régimen de carniceros y su amo Putin!

PARTE 3

 

7. El club de fans de Xi: signatarios de la declaración conjunta iniciada por CPUSA

 

La lista de signatarios de la declaración iniciada por CPUSA es aún más interesante. El propio CPUSA no es un partido relevante en particular, pero es un animador dedicado del régimen capitalista estalinista en Beijing. No hace mucho, John Bachtell, el presidente del partido, escribió un elogio más descarado: “El PCCh es un partido profundamente revolucionario, que aplica creativamente el marxismo a la realidad china. Su enfoque es pragmático, basado en hechos, autocrítico y autorreformativo. Lejos de construir una economía capitalista, el PCCh está trazando un camino en el contexto de las realidades de China, guiando al país para lograr una sociedad socialista moderna en condiciones extraordinariamente difíciles y no sin muchos problemas, errores y deficiencias, una con 'características chinas'.” [34]

 

Sin embargo, hay otros signatarios más importantes de esta Declaración Conjunta pro China sin vergüenza. La KSCM antes mencionada se encuentra entre ellas, ya que firmó ambas declaraciones. El Partido Tudeh de Irán, un partido prominente del pasado (apoyó la dictadura de Jomeini en el primer período), es uno de ellos. El Partido Italiano de la Refundación Comunista es otra luz del pasado. En las décadas de 1990 y 2000, formó parte dos veces del gobierno neoliberal Prodi antes de que colapsara y perdiera sus escaños en el parlamento. En este período, fue una fuerza líder de la izquierda europea, una asociación a nivel europeo de partidos socialdemócratas en su mayoría ex estalinistas, ahora de "izquierda".

 

Otros dos partidos más importantes son el Partido Comunista de Brasil (PCdoB) y el Partido Comunista Brasileño (PCB). Ambos han formado parte de la alianza de frente popular en torno al PT de Lula. El PCdoB, el mayor de los dos, fue parte del gobierno anterior y todavía tiene escaños en los parlamentos nacionales y regionales.

 

La firma del pequeño Partido Comunista Alemán (DKP) no es particularmente digna de mención. En cambio, el apoyo tanto del Partido Comunista Francés (PCF) como del Partido Comunista de España (PCE) es realmente muy interesante. Este es el caso por varias razones. En primer lugar, ambos son partidos importantes con presencia en los parlamentos nacionales y regionales, así como en varios alcaldes. El PCF formó parte del gobierno de Mitterand a principios de la década de 1980 y del gobierno de Jospin en 1997-2002. También apoyó al gobierno de Hollande en 2012-17. El PCE español forma parte incluso del actual gobierno del presidente Sánchez.

 

En segundo lugar, sus firmas son notables ya que ambos partidos son miembros de la Izquierda Europea (EL). De hecho, pertenecen a las fuerzas más importantes dentro de EL, junto con SYRIZA en Grecia y el LINKE alemán. Normalmente, estas fuerzas EL no actúan en común con los partidos afiliados al KKE. Como se sabe, el KKE califica a SYRIZA como un partido traidor ya que implementó en sus años como partido gubernamental (2015-19) los devastadores paquetes de austeridad que resultaron del Memorando imperialista de la UE.

 

Finalmente, también son interesantes las firmas del PCF y del PCE, ya que se trata de partidos gubernamentales, en el pasado o en el presente, de países que pertenecen a la alianza imperialista de la OTAN. Por cierto, estos hechos por sí solos demuestran que estos partidos estalinistas no son "antiimperialistas" de ninguna manera. Como hemos señalado en trabajos anteriores, el PCF fue parte del gobierno de Jospin que participó en la guerra de la OTAN contra Serbia en 1999, así como en la invasión imperialista de Afganistán en 2001. [35] En 2013, el PCF sólo la mitad se opuso de todo corazón a la intervención militar francesa en Francia. [36] Asimismo, no se opuso a la participación de las fuerzas francesas en Irak como parte de la denominada Coalición Anti-ISIS. [37]

 

El PCE, que forma parte del gobierno de Sánchez desde enero de 2020, ha estado plenamente comprometido con la política bonapartista de encierro, incluido el despliegue al ejército en las calles para imponer toques de queda masivo (con el pretexto de la pandemia). [38]

 

8. El concepto de multilateralismo y convivencia pacífica: una ilusión reaccionaria

 

Antes de discutir el significado de la lista de partidos signatarios y lo que nos dice sobre su carácter de clase, queremos abordar una concepción política central del estalinismo que es relevante para el tema en discusión. Como señalamos anteriormente, un argumento clave de su apoyo a China y Rusia es la crítica del “orden mundial unipolar”. Como ya explicamos, ese orden mundial ya no existe en la realidad. Sin embargo, lo que nos interesa en este punto es la pregunta ¿cuál es el concepto alternativo de los estalinistas?

 

Las palabras clave de su alternativa son “multilateralismo” y “convivencia pacífica”. El primer concepto simplemente significa que en lugar de un hegemón absoluto debería haber varios poderes que se traten entre sí como iguales. El concepto posterior significa que estos poderes deberían coexistir sin conflictos ni guerras.

 

Ambos conceptos carecen de base en el mundo real que es el mundo del capitalismo y sus contradicciones internas. El capitalismo se caracteriza, por su propia naturaleza, por la competencia entre diferentes capitalistas y por la rivalidad entre diferentes poderes. Siempre ha sido así, y no podía ser de otra manera. Gran Bretaña contra Rusia, Gran Bretaña contra Francia, Francia contra Alemania, Rusia contra Japón, Estados Unidos contra España, etc., todos ellos hicieron la guerra entre sí y todos estuvieron involucrados en las dos Guerras Mundiales en la primera mitad del siglo XX.

 

Cuando la Segunda Guerra Mundial resultó a) en la hegemonía absoluta del imperialismo estadounidense entre los estados capitalistas y b) por la expansión del estalinismo, comenzó la era de la Guerra Fría. Esto redujo los conflictos interimperialistas hasta cierto punto, pero solo porque fueron reemplazados por el conflicto entre el imperialismo y los estados obreros deformados. Este conflicto resultó, entre otros, en la Guerra de Corea 1950-53 y la Guerra de Vietnam 1965-75 y provocó varias veces el peligro real de una guerra nuclear (por ejemplo, la llamada "crisis de Cuba" en 1962 o la escalada en la primera mitad de la década de 1980). Finalmente, el gobierno de las burocracias estalinistas en la URSS y Europa del Este colapsó en 1989-91. ¡Bien, el concepto de “coexistencia pacífica” no produjo resultados particularmente exitosos para el estalinismo!

 

En resumen, en los períodos en los que varias grandes potencias capitalistas desempeñaron un papel importante en la política mundial (es decir, sin una hegemonía absoluta que subordinara a las demás), las grandes guerras fueron los resultados inevitables. En resumen, el “multilateralismo” no puede dejar de resultar en guerra. Y la “coexistencia pacífica” entre los estados obreros imperialistas y (degenerados) no es pacífica ni pueden coexistir por mucho tiempo.

 

¿Cómo podría ser, teóricamente, un “orden mundial multilateral” como hoy? ¿Debería haber un Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU ampliado compuesto, por ejemplo, por los estados del G20? Por lo tanto, tal consejo no solo incluiría a las Grandes Potencias sino también a otros estados como Corea del Sur, India, Brasil, Argentina, Arabia Saudita, etc. Pero, ¿por qué las clases dominantes de estos estados deberían poder, o incluso querer, crear un ¡¿mundo pacifico?! El capitalismo está en decadencia, la economía mundial - la base de las ganancias de las corporaciones - está oscilando entre la depresión y el estancamiento, el cambio climático provoca repetidas catástrofes, etc. ¿cómo no podría ser de otra manera que las corporaciones intensifiquen su competencia y que los estados aceleren su rivalidad?

 

Algunos estalinistas podrían objetar que todas las tensiones son causadas por la agresiva política exterior del imperialismo estadounidense. Sin duda, Washington sigue una política exterior expansionista. Pero es totalmente ilegítimo que un marxista asuma que solo un estado imperialista o incluso un estado capitalista es agresivo, y que todos los demás estados imperialistas y capitalistas no tienen objetivos expansionistas. Basta mirar hacia atrás a varios eventos en la política mundial en los últimos años y uno verá que el choque de intereses entre varios estados resulta en tensiones, guerras comerciales, amenazas de guerras o guerras reales. Hablemos de las sanciones entre EE. UU. y la UE [39] , la guerra comercial entre Japón y Corea del Sur [40], la amenaza de guerra entre China e India en 2017 y en 2020 [41], las amenazas de guerra entre Egipto y Etiopía, la invasión de Arabia Saudita y Emiratos Árabes Unidos en Yemen desde 2015 [42], la guerra entre Azerbaiyán y Armenia en 2020 [43] , las guerras civiles en Siria y Libia [44] (con participación de actores extranjeros), las tensiones en el Mar de China Meridional entre China, por un lado, y sus vecinos como Vietnam o Filipinas por otro lado , etc. No, las clases dominantes de todos estos estados defienden sus propios intereses capitalistas cuando están en conflicto con otro estado; no se limitan a defender los intereses de Washington o de cualquier otra potencia extranjera.

 

En resumen, un orden mundial en el que Estados Unidos ya no es el hegemónico absoluto, ¡sino solo una de las grandes potencias, definitivamente no es más pacífico! ¡Es solo la etapa de abierta rivalidad entre las grandes potencias, la etapa intermedia entre el unilateralismo y la Tercera Guerra Mundial!

 

Para decirlo de manera más general: ¿siempre, en la historia de las sociedades de clases, los imperios existieron pacíficamente uno al lado del otro sin tensiones, conflictos y, en última instancia, guerras? ¡Y todo esto es aún más cierto en la época del imperialismo, es decir, en la época del capitalismo en decadencia! Observemos de pasada que en la última época del capitalismo las contradicciones entre las clases y los Estados evolucionan - y chocan - con mucha más rapidez que en cualquier otra época histórica anterior. Todo el análisis marxista de la época del capitalismo monopolista y del imperialismo se basa en el entendimiento de que las contradicciones entre clases y estados se aceleran inevitablemente porque el sistema capitalista está en declive.

 

No, el concepto de "multilateralismo" no es más que una tapadera diplomática para el deseo de China y Rusia de ser tratados como grandes potencias "iguales" a los EE.UU. Y la frase de "coexistencia pacífica" es para los simplones en el estalinista, pacifista y campo liberal. Objetivamente, es decir, independientemente de sus intenciones subjetivas, los defensores de un " orden mundial multilateral " y la " coexistencia pacífica " son servidores del imperialismo chino y ruso. Sus declaraciones conjuntas no son más que una expresión del socialimperialismo pro-oriental, mezclado con el pacifismo y la hipocresía.

 

9. "Socialismo en un solo país": las raíces históricas del concepto estalinista de "convivencia pacífica"

 

Los conceptos de “multilateralismo” y “convivencia pacífica” no son nuevos. Fueron creados por la burocracia estalinista a fines de la década de 1920 y principios de la de 1930 y fueron el resultado de la famosa teoría oportunista de “Socialismo en un solo país”. Como esta teoría ha sido tratada por los marxistas en varias obras, nos limitamos en este punto a una caracterización muy breve. [45] La teoría estalinista del "socialismo en un solo país" asume erróneamente que el socialismo, es decir, una sociedad en la que la riqueza del pueblo está creciendo y da como resultado la reducción del tiempo de trabajo y en la que las clases y el estado se están extinguiendo sucesivamente, podría establecerse dentro de los límites de un país. Como Trotsky y otros marxistas señalaron repetidamente, esto es una ilusión debido a la naturaleza internacional de las fuerzas productivas. Confinados en un solo país, solo podían desarrollarse de manera limitada y definitivamente no superar a los países capitalistas avanzados. El colapso de varios estados obreros estalinistas después de un largo período de estancamiento económico fue una poderosa confirmación de la teoría de Trotsky. Además, la teoría estalinista se basa en la ilusión de que los estados capitalistas y obreros podrían coexistir pacíficamente uno al lado del otro a pesar de que representaban intereses de clase fundamentalmente antagónicos.

 

Trotsky y sus partidarios, desde el comienzo de la Oposición de Izquierda constituida en 1923 contra la burocracia estalinista que luego se convirtió en la Cuarta Internacional en 1938, argumentaron que los marxistas no deben orientarse a construir el socialismo en el aislamiento nacional, sino más bien como parte de una estrategia internacional de revolución permanente. Dado que el estancamiento y la dictadura burocrática son inevitables si la revolución permanece confinada a un solo país (o un grupo de países), los trotskistas abogan por una estrategia que se centre en ayudar a la lucha de clases internacional para expandir el proceso revolucionario. Naturalmente, esto no excluye períodos de retiro e incluso aislamiento. Pero la construcción del socialismo en un país debe estar siempre subordinada a la estrategia de hacer avanzar la revolución mundial y no al revés, como hicieron los estalinistas: subordinar la lucha de clases internacional a los intereses de la casta burocrática que gobierna en uno, o varios países. [46]

 

En su famoso libro sobre la revolución permanente, Trotsky formuló el carácter internacionalista esencial de la estrategia proletaria así: “El carácter internacional de la revolución socialista, que constituye el tercer aspecto de la teoría de la revolución permanente, es consecuencia inevitable del estado actual de la economía y de la estructura social de la humanidad. El internacionalismo no es un principio abstracto, sino únicamente un reflejo teórico y político del carácter mundial de la economía, del desarrollo mundial de las fuerzas productivas y del alcance mundial de la lucha de clases. La revolución socialista empieza dentro de las fronteras nacionales; pero no puede contenerse en ellas. La contención, de la revolución proletaria dentro de un territorio nacional no puede ser más que un régimen transitorio, aunque sea prolongado, como lo demuestra la experiencia de la Unión Soviética. Sin embargo, con la existencia de una dictadura proletaria aislada, las contradicciones interiores y exteriores crecen paralelamente a los éxitos. De continuar aislado, el Estado proletario caería, más tarde o más temprano, víctima de dichas contradicciones. Su salvación está únicamente en hacer que triunfe el proletariado en los países más progresivos. Considerada desde este punto de vista, la revolución socialista implantada en un país no es un fin en sí, sino únicamente un eslabón de la cadena internacional. La revolución internacional representa de suyo, pese a todos los reflujos temporales, un proceso permanente.” [47]

 

Estas ideas fueron una continuación de la comprensión del propio Lenin que explicó en numerosas ocasiones en los años previos a su muerte. Trotsky había publicado varias de estas declaraciones de Lenin en un apéndice de su libro "Historia de la Revolución Rusa" (¿Socialismo en un solo país?). [48] Aquí hay solo uno, de un discurso en 1906, que muestra cómo Lenin ya entendió temprano la necesidad de luchar por una perspectiva internacionalista de la revolución: “Si nos referimos a una garantía económica real y plenamente efectiva contra la restauración, es decir, una garantía que crearía las condiciones económicas que impiden la restauración, entonces tendremos que decir: la única garantía contra la restauración es una revolución socialista en Occidente. No puede haber otra garantía en el sentido real y pleno del término. (…) Yo formularía esta proposición de la siguiente manera: la revolución rusa puede lograr la victoria por sus propios esfuerzos, pero no es posible que mantenga y consolide sus logros por su propia fuerza. No puede hacer esto a menos que haya una revolución socialista en Occidente. (…) Después de la victoria total de la revolución democrática, el pequeño propietario se volverá inevitablemente contra el proletariado; y cuanto antes los enemigos comunes del proletariado y de los pequeños propietarios, como los capitalistas, los terratenientes, la burguesía financiera, etc. son derrocados, cuanto antes suceda. Nuestra república democrática no tiene otra reserva que el proletariado socialista en Occidente.” [49]

 

Ya en diciembre de 1927, en el XV Congreso del Partido Comunista cuando la burocracia expulsó a la Oposición de Izquierda de Trotsky, Stalin afirmó que sería posible la coexistencia pacífica de la URSS con los países capitalistas. “Por tanto, el mantenimiento de relaciones pacíficas con los países capitalistas es una tarea obligada para nosotros. Nuestras relaciones con los países capitalistas se basan en el supuesto de que es posible la coexistencia de dos sistemas opuestos. La práctica lo ha confirmado completamente.” [50]

 

Unos años más tarde, Stalin repitió este concepto en una entrevista con un periodista estadounidense. “Stalin dio una explicación popular de la política tal como la veía la Unión Soviética, en noviembre de 1930, al Sr. Walter Duranty, el periodista estadounidense: 'Duranty: ¿No ves ninguna razón por la que los sistemas capitalista y comunista no deberían existir uno al lado del otro sin lucha? Stalin: No han luchado durante diez años, lo que significa que pueden coexistir. No queremos pelear, y algunos de su gente tampoco.” [51]

 

Tal enfoque era lógico desde el punto de vista de la burocracia estalinista. Si era posible construir el “socialismo en un solo país”, la tarea era asegurar que las potencias extranjeras no interfieran y perturben este proceso. Por lo tanto, un concepto tan conservador no podría orientarse hacia la expansión del proceso revolucionario sino hacia el apaciguamiento de las potencias capitalistas y hacia la utilización de la lucha de clases internacional para ayudar a tal objetivo.

 

El concepto de "coexistencia pacífica" (a veces también llamado "seguridad colectiva") se desarrolló más y se puso en práctica en 1934, cuando la URSS se unió a la Sociedad de Naciones (la predecesora de las Naciones Unidas). Un año después, Moscú y París concluyeron el famoso Pacto Stalin-Laval que representó una alianza de la burocracia estalinista con el imperialismo francés.

 

En ese momento, Stalin renovó la defensa de su concepto ilusorio de "coexistencia pacífica" con el imperialismo. Dijo en una entrevista: “Howard: ¿Considera compatible el desarrollo coincidente de la democracia estadounidense y el sistema soviético? Stalin: La democracia estadounidense y el sistema soviético pueden coexistir pacíficamente y competir entre sí. Pero uno no puede evolucionar hacia el otro. El sistema soviético no evolucionará hacia la democracia estadounidense, o viceversa. Podemos existir pacíficamente uno al lado del otro si no nos encontramos faltas en cada asunto insignificante.” [52]

 

En consecuencia, la Internacional Comunista se convirtió en una fuerza social-patriótica y el PCF votó en el parlamento francés, por primera vez, por el presupuesto militar de los gobiernos. Como señaló Trotsky en ese momento, esta alianza significó que la Internacional Comunista se había transformado a mediados de la década de 1930 en una fuerza reformista y un servidor de la burguesía imperialista.

 

Como es bien sabido, unirse a la Liga de Naciones y concluir alianzas con las grandes potencias imperialistas no ayudó a la Unión Soviética a evitar la guerra. Como el imperialismo francés, "sorprendentemente", continuó una política exterior basada en los intereses imperialistas y no trajo ningún resultado positivo para Moscú, el Kremlin cambió de alianza en agosto de 1939 y firmó el notorio Pacto Hitler-Stalin. Nuevamente, "sorprendentemente", Hitler no se adhirió lealmente al pacto e invadió la URSS en junio de 1941. Como resultado, Moscú volvió a dirigirse a los imperialistas occidentales. Esta alianza terminó cuando Washington declaró el comienzo de la Guerra Fría en 1947.

 

Todas estas alianzas no se limitaron estrictamente a acuerdos comerciales o acuerdos militares (que en sí mismos no habrían sido ilegítimos para un estado obrero). Sin embargo, estos tratados tenían más bien el carácter de alianzas estratégicas y políticas. En Francia, el PCF se convirtió en partidario del gobierno capitalista y votó por el presupuesto militar. Cuando Stalin cambió su alianza, los partidos comunistas siguieron su ejemplo. Durante el Pacto Hitler-Stalin, el Komintern denunció el imperialismo occidental "plutocrático" y elogió la política exterior " amante de la paz " de la Alemania nazi. Cuando Hitler ya no era un "amante de la paz”- es decir, cuando no solo invadió Polonia, Noruega, Yugoslavia, etc., sino también la Unión Soviética - Moscú se vio obligado a dar otro giro. A partir de 1941, Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos no se caracterizaron como potencias imperialistas sino como " democracias antifascistas ". Los partidos comunistas recibieron instrucciones de apoyarlos incondicionalmente y de oponerse estrictamente a todas las formas de lucha de clases contra ellos. Por lo tanto, el PC de la India denunció el levantamiento popular contra la administración colonial británica en agosto de 1942. Y el PC británico se opuso a todas las huelgas obreras en ese momento ya que "sólo serviría a Hitler".

 

En los años 1945-47, los partidos comunistas participaron en los gobiernos del Frente Popular en Francia, Italia y Austria, junto con los partidos conservadores y socialdemócratas. Su papel en ese momento fue una ayuda decisiva para la burguesía nacional, ya que fueron clave para desarmar a los partisanos, para utilizar los sindicatos como instrumentos para reprimir las huelgas militantes o para pacificar las insurrecciones del pueblo colonial (por ejemplo, en Argelia en mayo de 1945 o en Indochina). Este papel fue fundamental para que la burguesía imperialista superara la crisis revolucionaria del final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y consolidara el capitalismo. Una vez que los estalinistas cumplieron su papel, fueron expulsados sin ceremonias de los gobiernos de coalición. En esos casos, si los partisanos comunistas se negaron a rendirse a los imperialistas occidentales (como en Grecia), fueron denunciados y traicionados por la burocracia estalinista.

 

Irónicamente, Stalin siguió defendiendo el concepto de “coexistencia pacífica” ... ¡sólo unos meses antes del comienzo de la Guerra Fría imperialista contra la URSS! "Nuevamente el 21 de diciembre de 1946, cuando Elliott Roosevelt le preguntó a Stalin si creía posible que Estados Unidos viviera pacíficamente al lado de `` una forma comunista de gobierno como la Unión Soviética '' sin interferencia mutua, Stalin respondió que no solo era posible, pero tornillo de banco y completamente dentro de los límites de la realización”. Cuando Henry Wallace le envió una carta abierta en la que presentaba propuestas para un arreglo de las diferencias entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética, Stalin (17 de mayo de 1948) instó a su aceptación como base para el acuerdo, y agregó que, a pesar de las diferencias en los sistemas económicos y las ideologías, 'la coexistencia de estos sistemas y la solución pacífica de las diferencias entre la URSS y los Estados Unidos no solo son posibles sino absolutamente necesarios en interés de la paz universal”. [53]

 

Con el comienzo de la Guerra Fría en 1947, la burocracia estalinista se vio obligada, contra su voluntad, a enfrentarse al imperialismo. Sin embargo, Stalin seguía afirmando que era posible la "coexistencia pacífica" con el capitalismo. Eso, dijo, en medio de la Guerra de Corea. "En una respuesta a cincuenta editores estadounidenses, publicada el 2 de abril de 1952, le habían preguntado: "¿Sobre qué base es posible la coexistencia del capitalismo y el comunismo?" - Stalin dijo: La coexistencia pacífica del capitalismo y el comunismo es plenamente posible dado el deseo mutuo de cooperación, la disposición para cumplir con las obligaciones asumidas, la observancia del principio de igualdad y la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de otros Estados. ' También fue en presencia de Stalin que Georgi Malenkov, en su informe en el XIX Congreso del Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (5 de octubre de 1952). había reafirmado la actitud soviética hacia los Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña, Francia y otros Estados burgueses. 'La URSS sigue dispuesto a cooperar con estos Estados con miras a promover la adhesión a las normas internacionales pacíficas y garantizar una paz duradera y duradera '. Esto se basó en la premisa de que la coexistencia pacífica y la cooperación del capitalismo y el comunismo son bastante posibles, siempre que haya un deseo mutuo de cooperación, disposición para cumplir compromisos y adhesión al principio de igualdad de derechos y no injerencia en los asuntos internos de otros Estados». El Sr. Malenkov estableció un programa de pasos prácticos para la cooperación, al que volveremos más adelante. disposición para cumplir los compromisos y adhesión al principio de igualdad de derechos y no injerencia en los asuntos internos de otros Estados”. El Sr. Malenkov estableció un programa de pasos prácticos para la cooperación, al que volveremos más adelante. disposición para cumplir los compromisos y adhesión al principio de igualdad de derechos y no injerencia en los asuntos internos de otros Estados”. El Sr. Malenkov estableció un programa de pasos prácticos para la cooperación, al que volveremos más adelante.” [54]

 

Más tarde, Jruschov y luego Brezhnev pondrían aún más énfasis en la necesidad de una “coexistencia pacífica”. Todas estas repetidas declaraciones sobre la “coexistencia pacífica” entre capitalismo y socialismo dejaron muy claro que la burocracia gobernante, comenzando por el propio Stalin, no tenía la intención de hacer avanzar la revolución mundial, sino que estaba más bien interesada en mantener el poder dentro de sus estados. Al mismo tiempo, los burócratas estaban decididos a defender brutalmente su poder contra su propia clase trabajadora que luchaba por la libertad (por ejemplo, en Alemania Oriental 1953, Hungría 1956, Checoslovaquia 1968 y en Polonia 1980-81).

 

Al final, la burocracia estalinista, que había tratado tanto de apaciguar al imperialismo con su política exterior conservadora como de reprimir a su clase trabajadora, se derrumbó y fue abandonada al basurero de la historia.

PARTE 4

 

10. Al servicio de dos amos: los imperialistas orientales y los sectores de la burguesía doméstica

 

Sin duda, muchos activistas de los partidos estalinistas imaginan que ponerse del lado de China y Rusia en la Guerra Fría contra los imperialistas occidentales o incluso elogiar a China como un “país socialista” representa una postura de antiimperialismo. De hecho, se trata de un engaño peligroso. Ha ocurrido en varias ocasiones en la historia del movimiento obrero que los autoproclamados marxistas apoyaron una potencia imperialista en nombre de la “democracia” o el “socialismo”. Durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, los socialistas en Alemania, Gran Bretaña, Francia, Rusia y otras grandes potencias se unieron a su propia clase dominante... en nombre de "defender los intereses de la clase trabajadora". Algunos apoyaron a las grandes potencias extranjeras. [55] En las décadas de 1930 y 1940, los socialdemócratas, estalinistas y centristas abogaron por el apoyo al imperialismo occidental en nombre del "antifascismo". Los reformistas alemanes y austriacos se convirtieron en partidarios del imperialismo estadounidense y británico contra "su patria". Los estalinistas indios llamaron a los trabajadores y campesinos ... a unirse al ejército británico y servir a sus amos coloniales (excepto en el período 1939-41 cuando Gran Bretaña era el "enemigo principal" y la Alemania nazi era un aliado "amante de la paz").

 

Todos estos actos de traición, de servir al enemigo de clase se cometieron en nombre del “socialismo”. De hecho, esta fue la violación más flagrante de las enseñanzas fundamentales de los clásicos marxistas. Lenin y Trotsky caracterizaron esta política de colaboración de clases con la clase dominante nacional o extranjera como "socialimperialismo", es decir, una política "socialista" en palabras e imperialista en hechos.

 

Como hemos señalado en nuestros trabajos, alinearse directa o indirectamente con Rusia y China en la Guerra Fría con las grandes potencias occidentales es primordial para el socialimperialismo pro-oriental. Es una continuación de la política del reformismo en la Primera Guerra Mundial y de la socialdemocracia, el estalinismo y el centrismo en la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

 

Por el contrario, los marxistas tienen que defender los intereses independientes e internacionales de los trabajadores y oprimidos. No apoya a Estados Unidos, Europa Occidental o Japón, ni a China y Rusia. Movilizándonos contra el chovinismo y el militarismo de todas y cada una de las Grandes Potencias. Apoyando las luchas de liberación de los pueblos oprimidos, tanto contra occidentales como contra los imperialistas orientales o sus representantes. Utilizar todas las dificultades de la clase dominante para hacer avanzar la lucha revolucionaria para que los trabajadores y los oprimidos puedan finalmente derrocarla. Luchando contra todos los agentes burgueses dentro del movimiento obrero y popular que están al servicio de esta o aquella Gran Potencia. Estos son, en una versión muy resumida, los principios del auténtico antiimperialismo.

 

No tenemos la intención de tratar con más detalle la política estalinista del socialimperialismo pro-oriental en este punto como ya lo hicimos en otros trabajos. En este lugar queremos llamar la atención sobre un tema relacionado que puede pasarse por alto fácilmente. Los estalinistas en Rusia, China, Siria y otros países aliados con Beijing y Moscú son socialimperialistas vulgares que sirven a su clase dominante. En el caso de los estalinistas en los países occidentales, las cosas son diferentes. Aquí estas fuerzas son más bien " socialimperialistas invertidos ", como señalaron Lenin y Trotsky. [56] En otras palabras, no sirven a la burguesía imperialista nacional sino a la extranjera.

 

Lo que queremos señalar en este lugar es lo siguiente. Como dijimos, los estalinistas fuera de la esfera de influencia ruso-china son "socialimperialistas invertidos" al servicio de la clase dominante en Beijing y Moscú. Pero esto no es todo. También sirven a los intereses de sectores de su propia burguesía doméstica. Expliquemos esto brevemente con más detalle.

 

Como es bien sabido, sectores de la burguesía europea, de la clase capitalista en Brasil, Sudáfrica, India, Japón y muchos otros países tienen estrechas relaciones comerciales con China y, en un grado considerablemente menor, con Rusia. Incluso en los EE. UU. Hay una sección no demasiado pequeña de la burguesía monopolista que desea una continuación de los "buenos viejos tiempos" cuando existían relaciones comerciales estrechas e ininterrumpidas con China. Grandes sectores de la clase capitalista en importantes países semicoloniales como Brasil, Argentina, países del sur y sureste de Asia, Turquía, Sudáfrica, etc., ven la inversión y el comercio chinos como decisivos para sus perspectivas. Las corporaciones europeas consideran el mercado chino como el más importante ya que aún se está expandiendo (a diferencia de América del Norte y Europa). Esto se ve reforzado por el hecho de que China ha superado ahora a Estados Unidos como el socio comercial más importante de la UE. (Ver Tabla 10)

 

Tabla 10. Total de bienes: principales socios comerciales de la Unión Europea en 2020 [57]

 

Clasificación                                                                                    En millones de euros       participación (en%)

 

Comercio exterior de la UE con el mundo                             3.646.078                              100,0

 

1             China                                                                                   586.737                                16,1

 

2             Estados Unidos                                                                556.230                                 15,3

 

3             Reino Unido                                                                      444.966                                 12,2

 

4             Suiza                                                                                   250.967                                   6,9

 

5             Rusia                                                                                   174.014                                  4,8

 

 

 

Esto se vuelve particularmente evidente si se mira la respuesta de muchos estados a la conocida Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta (BRI) del imperialismo chino, la versión de Beijing del Plan Marshall, por así decirlo. Como es sabido, numerosos países del Sur de todos los continentes se han sumado a la iniciativa BRI. Sin embargo, en los últimos años varios estados miembros de la Unión Europea también han comenzado a participar en el BRI. Entre estos se encuentran no solo todos los estados de Europa del Este, sino también otros como Italia, Austria, Portugal, Grecia y Chipre. [58]

 

Este no es el lugar para analizar todas las características del proyecto BRI. Para el tema en discusión, es suficiente señalar que grandes sectores de la burguesía en los países semicoloniales y también en los estados imperialistas que están en alianza política con el imperialismo estadounidense - como Japón, Corea del Sur o Europa Occidental - no tienen deseo de romper relaciones con China (y Rusia). La razón de esto no es ninguna idea antiimperialista o ninguna lealtad hacia Beijing, sino simplemente por sus propios intereses comerciales. Pueden hacer un buen dinero uniéndose a grandes proyectos de infraestructura liderados por China, exportando bienes a China o importándolos desde allí, logrando que las corporaciones chinas se unan como accionistas, etc. Como mostramos anteriormente en las Tablas 8 y 9, China es el principal productor y exportador mundial de materias primas.

 

Por lo tanto, no es sorprendente que los líderes del imperialismo de Europa Occidental intenten encontrar un equilibrio entre presionar a China a través de una política exterior agresiva pro estadounidense, por un lado, y profundizar las relaciones económicas con Pekín, por el otro. Las actuales negociaciones en el Parlamento Europeo y entre los gobiernos de la UE sobre el acuerdo de inversión UE-China son un buen ejemplo de esto. Si bien varios diputados parlamentarios se oponen a este tratado, Merkel y Macron se esfuerzan por llevarlo a cabo. Asimismo, las principales grandes potencias europeas se han unido a Estados Unidos para criticar a China por la violación de los derechos humanos en la última cumbre del G7. También apoyaron la iniciativa de Biden para un programa de infraestructura rival a la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta de China y acordaron establecer un consejo de comercio y tecnología en la próxima cumbre UE-EE. UU. dispuesto a estudiar activamente y unirse a la propia Iniciativa de Asociación para el Desarrollo de Apoyo a África de China, que busca profundizar la participación de Beijing en África. [59]

 

En otras palabras, grandes sectores del capital monopolista de Europa, así como muchos capitalistas en países del Sur, tienen un interés directo en oponerse al impulso de Washington para una nueva Guerra Fría. Esto no significa necesariamente que se unirían al campo de China. Pero al menos prefieren permanecer neutrales y no quieren ofender a Pekín.

 

Por todas estas razones, tenemos que afirmar que, si bien la caracterización de las fuerzas estalinistas, bolivarianas y populistas de izquierda como socialimperialistas pro-orientales es plenamente válida, no es completa. Estas fuerzas no son sólo socialimperialistas pro-orientales, sino también, al mismo tiempo, defensoras de los intereses de un sector de la burguesía monopolista doméstica. En resumen, ¡sirven no a uno sino a dos amos capitalistas!

 

Es este doble papel el que explica lo que, a primera vista, parece ser una contradicción. ¿Cómo pueden los partidos de un país de la OTAN, como el PCF francés o el PCE español, que han demostrado ser partidos gubernamentales leales a la burguesía monopolista nacional, firmar una declaración pro china sin disimular? La explicación es sencilla. Sectores importantes de la burguesía imperialista de estos países europeos se oponen al impulso de la Guerra Fría de Estados Unidos y desean mantener relaciones estrechas, al menos a nivel económico, con Beijing.

 

En resumen, los partidos estalinista, bolivariano y populista de izquierda en Europa y otros países pro occidentales del Sur son tanto socialimperialistas invertidos (hacia Pekín y Moscú) como socialpatriotas (hacia su propia burguesía).

 

Este es, por cierto, un cambio importante en el papel de estos partidos estalinistas en comparación con el pasado. En el período de la Guerra Fría imperialista de Occidente contra la URSS y sus aliados, los partidos estalinistas de la OTAN y los países pro occidentales no siguieron una política socialimperialista cuando se pusieron del lado de Moscú. Más bien defendieron, aunque de manera reformista, a los estados obreros degenerados contra la agresión imperialista.

 

Hoy la situación es completamente diferente. Ya no existen estados obreros degenerados en el mundo. China y Rusia no son “socialistas” sino completamente capitalistas, de hecho, se han convertido en grandes potencias imperialistas. Por lo tanto, los partidos estalinistas ya no son leales a los estados poscapitalistas (es decir, se ponen del lado de una fuerza más progresista que la burguesía imperialista). En cambio, han degenerado en agentes directos de otras grandes potencias imperialistas.

 

11. Una nota sobre los "trotskistas" de labios cerrados (CWI, IMT, ISA)

 

Al final de este ensayo, deseamos agregar una breve nota sobre alguna organización internacional pseudo-trotskista. Hablamos del Comité por una Internacional de los Trabajadores (CWI), liderado por Peter Taaffe, la Corriente Marxista Internacional (IMT), liderada por Alan Woods, y la Alternativa Socialista Internacionalista (ISA) que tiene a SA en los EE.UU. Todos proceden de la misma tradición, la denominada tradición Militante asociada al nombre de su fundador, Ted Grant. Originalmente, todos eran parte de la misma corriente internacional: el CWI. Sin embargo, el IMT fue expulsado en 1992 y el ISA es el resultado de otra división del CWI en 2019.

 

No es posible criticar las declaraciones de estas tres organizaciones por su posición sobre el reciente tiroteo entre Reino Unido y Rusia en el Mar Negro. ¡No es posible hacerlo porque ninguno ha publicado un solo documento sobre este importante evento!

 

Tal silencio es muy notable por tres razones. Primero, este ha sido un evento importante que fue ampliamente informado en los medios de comunicación mundiales. En segundo lugar, estas organizaciones están "directamente" involucradas en este conflicto, ya que dos de ellas tienen sus "secciones madre" en Gran Bretaña y la tercera (ISA) también tiene una presencia considerable en este país. Además, dos de ellos (IMT e ISA) también tienen secciones en Rusia. En tercer lugar, no se trata de pequeñas sectas, sino de organizaciones con dinero y un aparato de tiempo completo que publican artículos y declaraciones en sus sitios web a diario.

 

Entonces, ¿cómo se puede explicar un silencio tan extraño? Como no puede ser por falta de recursos, la razón solo se puede encontrar en el fundamento político de estas organizaciones. Y, de hecho, como ha demostrado la CCRI en varios documentos, la tradición Grantista nunca entendió el análisis marxista del imperialismo, ni aceptó el programa del antiimperialismo y el derrotismo revolucionario.

 

En 1982, cuando todos estaban unidos en el CWI, se negaron a llamar a la derrota del imperialismo británico en su guerra de agresión contra Argentina. [60] Tampoco lo hicieron en guerras posteriores contra la gente del Sur (Irak 1991, Afganistán 2001, Irak 2003). [61] El líder del IMT, Alan Woods, incluso afirma erróneamente que Lenin habría corregido su programa de "derrotismo revolucionario" (es decir, que habría dejado caer consignas como "la derrota de su propio gobierno es el mal menor" y "la transformación de la guerra imperialista en guerra civil”). [62] Este ablandamiento oportunista del programa marxista de antiimperialismo va de la mano de la concepción archirrevisionista de que es posible un camino pacífico hacia el socialismo. [63] Y desde hace varios años, defienden la consigna de un "Israel socialista" del lado de una "Palestina socialista" (CWI, ISA) y el lema de una "patria judía" del lado de una "patria palestina". En otras palabras, se adaptan vergonzosamente al sionismo colonialista de colonos y sus "logros" contra la población palestina. [64]

 

Estas fuerzas no solo se adaptan de manera oportunista al socialimperialismo, ya sea en las metrópolis occidentales o en Israel. Al menos el CWI y el IMT también están confundidos, para usar una formulación educada, cuando se trata de la caracterización de clase de China y Rusia. Como mostramos en nuestro libro sobre la rivalidad de las grandes potencias, el CWI y el IMT se niegan a caracterizar a las potencias orientales como imperialistas. [65]

 

Dada una tradición tan arraigada de adaptación al socialimperialismo británico, así como la confusión teórica sobre el carácter de clase de Rusia y China, no es de extrañar que estas organizaciones prefieran guardar silencio sobre confrontaciones entre grandes potencias como la reciente en el Mar Negro. Sin duda, esto es políticamente menos riesgoso para ellos que arriesgarse.

 

12. Conclusiones

 

Concluyamos en forma de algunas tesis que, según nos parece, resumirán las principales ideas de este ensayo.

 

1.            China (y Rusia) no son estados "antiimperialistas", "progresistas", y mucho menos "socialistas". Son más bien grandes potencias imperialistas que juegan un papel importante en la economía mundial capitalista respectivamente en la política mundial.

 

2.            Por tanto, la nueva Guerra Fría no es un conflicto entre potencias imperialistas reaccionarias, por un lado, y fuerzas “progresistas”, por el otro. Es más bien el resultado de la aceleración de la rivalidad entre varias grandes potencias imperialistas (EE.UU., China, UE, Rusia y Japón).

 

3.            Las dos Declaraciones Conjuntas, firmadas por numerosos partidos estalinistas, están dirigidas únicamente contra las potencias imperialistas occidentales. No levantan ninguna oposición contra China y Rusia y una de estas declaraciones incluso sugiere que China sería un país "socialista".

 

4. Los    marxistas, por tanto, denuncian duramente estas declaraciones y las caracterizan como declaraciones de apoyo socialimperialista a China y Rusia.

 

5.            Los conceptos estalinistas de “multilateralismo” y “coexistencia pacífica” son una ilusión reaccionaria. Nunca ha habido ni podrá haber un orden global pacífico y estable liderado por varias grandes potencias en el período de decadencia capitalista. No puede haber una “coexistencia pacífica”: los monopolios son inevitables compitiendo entre sí por una mayor parte de la masa de ganancias, y las grandes potencias compiten entre sí por una mayor influencia global a costa de otras.

 

6.            Los estalinistas, castrochavistas y populistas de izquierda que están del lado de China y Rusia tienen un carácter dual, ya que sirven a dos amos capitalistas. Evidentemente, son socialimperialistas pro-orientales, agentes de la clase dominante en Pekín y Moscú. Al mismo tiempo, también defienden objetivamente los intereses de sectores de la burguesía doméstica que tienen un fuerte interés en oponerse a la Guerra Fría de Washington y en mantener relaciones amistosas con el mayor productor mundial de valor capitalista y comercio.

 

7.            Por el contrario, los revolucionarios tienen que oponerse a todas las grandes potencias imperialistas, tanto las de Occidente como las de Oriente. Están obligados a denunciar todas las formas de militarismo, chovinismo, así como sanciones y aranceles punitivos. No deben prestar apoyo de ninguna forma ni a su propia clase dominante ni a la burguesía imperialista rival. Basado en el famoso principio de los comunistas “el principal enemigo está en casa”, los revolucionarios pretenden utilizar cualquier conflicto para debilitar y eventualmente derrocar a la clase dominante.

 

8.            La lucha contra la guerra imperialista y el militarismo no es un tema separado de otros temas de la lucha de clases. “La guerra es una mera continuación de la política por otros medios”, como le gustaba citar a Lenin a Clausewitz. Por lo tanto, la lucha más eficaz contra la guerra es la lucha hoy contra todas y cada una de las clases dominantes, así como contra todas las grandes potencias para debilitarlas y eventualmente derrocarlas. En consecuencia, los socialistas tienen que apoyar las luchas de liberación de los pueblos oprimidos contra las grandes potencias y sus representantes, de nuevo los levantamientos tanto contra las potencias occidentales como contra las orientales.

 

9.            A partir de esto, los auténticos marxistas deben oponerse enérgicamente a aquellas fuerzas “progresistas” que apoyan de alguna manera a la propia Gran Potencia imperialista o a cualquier otra. Los revolucionarios reconocen a esas fuerzas como lacayos socialimperialistas y combaten su influencia dentro de los trabajadores y las organizaciones populares de masas.

 

10.          De esto se deduce que es crucial para los marxistas construir un Partido Revolucionario Mundial, un partido que pueda organizar la lucha internacional de la vanguardia obrera contra todas las Grandes Potencias y contra todas las clases dominantes. Para avanzar en el proceso de construcción de tal organismo, los revolucionarios deben unirse lo antes posible en una organización internacional que se base en un programa de independencia de clase, antiimperialismo y revolución mundial socialista.

 

Obreros y oprimidos: ¡Luchen contra todas las grandes potencias en Oriente y Occidente!

 

¡Únase a la CCRI!

 

 

 



[1] Sobre dos declaraciones sobre la nueva Guerra Fría que se han publicado a principios de este año, véase, por ejemplo, Michael Pröbsting: One-sided and Naïve ... at Best! A joint call by the friends of Chinese imperialism and the daydreamers of well-meaning global capitalism, 31 de marzo de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/joint-call-by-friends-of-chinese-imperialism-and-the-daydreamers/; del mismo autor: Stalinist and “Trotskyist” Supporters of Chinese Imperialism under the Fig-Leaf of “Anti-Imperialism”. A commentary on the statement “No to U.S. war threats against China!” by the “United National Antiwar Coalition” in the U.S., 4 de abril de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/stalinist-and-trotskyist-supporters-of-chinese-imperialism-under-the-fig-leaf-of-anti-imperialism/

[2] Vea en este nuestro libro de Michael Pröbsting: Antiimperialismo en la era de la rivalidad de las Grandes Potencias. Los factores detrás de la creciente rivalidad entre los EE. UU., China, Rusia, la UE y Japón. Crítica del análisis de la izquierda y un esbozo de la perspectiva marxista, RCIT Books, Viena 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/libro-anti-imperialismo-en-la-era-de-la-rivalidad-de-las-grandes-potencias/. Consulte también nuestros numerosos documentos sobre la Guerra Comercial Global que se han recopilado en una subpágina especial de nuestro sitio web: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/. Nuestro último folleto sobre este tema es de Michael Pröbsting: "Una pelea bastante buena". Encuentro EE.UU.-China en Alaska: Continúa la Guerra Fría Interimperialista, 23 de marzo de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/encuentro-ee-uu-china-en-alaska-continua-la-guerra-fr%C3%ADa-interimperialista/

[3] La CCRI ha publicado varios trabajos que discuten con más detalle el actual período histórico de decadencia capitalista. Ver p. Ej. capítulo 2-5 y 14 en Michael Pröbsting: 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, Vienna 2013, http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/; ver también folletos del mismo autor: The Catastrophic Failure of the Theory of “Catastrophism”. On the Marxist Theory of Capitalist Breakdown and its Misinterpretation by the Partido Obrero (Argentina) and its “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International”, 27 May 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-catastrophic-failure-of-the-theory-of-catastrophism/; además nos remitimos a los documentos anuales World Perspectives que la CCRI ha publicado en los últimos años: En particular, véase el capítulo II de World Perspectives 2016: El avance de la contrarrevolución y la aceleración de las contradicciones de clase marcan la apertura de una nueva fase política, 23 de enero de 2016, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-perspectives-2016/.

[4] La CCRI ha publicado numerosos documentos sobre el capitalismo en China. Vea en esto, por ejemplo. nuestro libro antes mencionado de Michael Pröbsting: Antiimperialismo en la Era de la Rivalidad de las Grandes Potencias. Véase también del mismo autor un ensayo publicado en la segunda edición de The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism (editado por Immanuel Ness y Zak Cope), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-91206-6_179-1; 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, http://www.thecommunists.net/publications/revcom-number-4; ¿Cómo es posible que algunos marxistas sigan dudando de que China se ha vuelto capitalista? (Una crítica del PTS/FT). Un análisis del carácter capitalista de las empresas estatales de China y sus consecuencias políticas, 18 de septiembre de 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/pts-ft-y-imperialismo-chino-2/; Incapaces de ver el bosque por ver los árboles. El empirismo ecléctico y la falla del PTS/FT en reconocer el carácter imperialista de China, 13 de agosto de 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/pts-ft-y-imperialismo-chino/. Vea muchos más documentos de la CCRI en una subpágina especial en el sitio web de la CCRI: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/.

[5] La CCRI ha publicado numerosos documentos sobre el capitalismo en Rusia y su ascenso a una potencia imperialista. Vea en esto, por ejemplo. Michael Pröbsting: Rusia y China: ¿ni capitalistas ni grandes potencias? Respuesta al PO/CRFI y su blanqueo revisionista del imperialismo chino y ruso, 28 de noviembre de 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/russia-and-china-neither-capitalist-nor-great-powers-reply-to-po-crfi/; ver también varios folletos del mismo autor: On the Marxist Theory of Capitalist Breakdown and its Misinterpretation by the Partido Obrero (Argentina) and its “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International”, 27 de mayo de 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-catastrophic-failure-of-the-theory-of-catastrophism/; 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 – A Reply to our Critics, 18 March 2014, in: Revolutionary Communism No. 21, http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/. Vea varios otros documentos de la CCRI sobre este tema en una subpágina especial en el sitio web de la CCRI: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/

[6] Para el análisis de la CCRI de la escaramuza en el Mar Negro, véanse los siguientes documentos: RCIT: Rusia lanza disparos de advertencia contra un buque de guerra del Reino Unido en el Mar Negro ¡Abajo el conato de guerra fría! Ningún apoyo para ninguna Gran Potencia imperialista, ¡ni Reino Unido, ni Estados Unidos ni Rusia!, 24 de junio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-fires-warning-shots-against-uk-warship-in-black-sea/#anker_3; Michael Pröbsting: “Next Time We Will Bomb the Target”. Shooting incident in Black Sea between UK and Russia shows that capitalism in decay is stumbling towards war, 24 de junio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-uk-next-time-we-will-bomb-the-target/; Laurence Humphries: Skirmish in Black Sea: Imperialist Patriotism in the UK, 27 de junio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/imperialist-patriotism-in-uk-on-skirmish-in-black-sea/; Michael Pröbsting: Examples of Pro-Russian Social-Imperialism. British Stalinism and the misnamed “World Socialist Web Site” on the shooting incident in the Black Sea between UK and Russia, 28 de junio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/

[7] Elliot Ackerman and James Stavridis: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, New York, Penguin Press, 2021

[8] Vea en esto, por ejemplo. Michael Pröbsting: “Maritime Freedom” – A Keyword of the U.S./NATO Warmongers. A leading representative of the U.S. Navy outlines a militaristic strategy against Russia and China, 5 de julio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/maritime-freedom-a-keyword-of-the-u-s-nato-warmongers/

[9] Citado en un artículo del exdiplomático indio MK Bhadrakumar: Anglo-American tripwire traps Russian bear, July 4, 2021 https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/anglo-american-tripwire-traps-russian-bear/

[10] Global Times: ‘Taiwan independence’ means war not empty threat, Editorial, Jan 29, 2021, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1214369.shtml

[11] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, pp. 12-13

[12] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 17

[13] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 12

[14] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 15

[15] Afganistán: ¡Buen viaje, yanquis! El significado de la retirada de Estados Unidos de Afganistán y sus consecuencias para la Guerra Fría interimperialista con China, 17 de abril de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/afganistan-buen-viaje-yanquis/

[16] Para conocer nuestro enfoque programático sobre los conflictos interimperialistas, véase, p. Ej. CCRI: Tesis sobre el derrotismo revolucionario en los estados imperialistas, 8 de septiembre de 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/tesis-sobre-el-derrotismo-revolucionario-en-los-estados-imperialistas/; véanse también los capítulos XVI a XX del libro mencionado anteriormente de Michael Pröbsting: Antiimperialismo en la era d la rivalidad de las Grandes Potencias. Véase también el ensayo en alemán del mismo autor: Lenin, die Bolschewiki und ihr Kampf gegen den imperialistischen Krieg. “Umwandlung des imperialistischen Krieges in den Bürgerkrieg“, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/deutsch/lenin-und-der-imperialistische-krieg/

[17] Joint Statement (initiated by the CP USA): The Communist and Workers’ Parties Condemn NATO’s Cold War Rhetoric, 29.6.2021, http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-USA-JOINT-STATEMENT-THE-COMMUNIST-AND-WORKERS-PARTIES-CONDEMN-NATOS-COLD-WAR-RHETORIC/; SolidNet Parties signing: Communist Party of Albania, Communist Party of Australia, Democratic Progressive Tribune-Bahrain, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Brazilian Communist Party, Communist Party of Brazil, New Communist Party of Britain, Columbian Communist Party, Socialist Workers’ Party of Croatia, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Communist Party of Denmark, Communist Party in Denmark, Communist Party of Finland, French Communist Party, German Communist Party, Hungarian Workers’ Party, Tudeh Party of Iran, Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, Communist Party of Ireland, Workers’ Party of Ireland, Party of the Communist Refoundation, Socialist Party of Lithuania, Communist Party of Norway, Philippine Communist Party (PKP-1930), Communist Party of Spain, Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain, Communist Party of Ukraine, Communist Party USA; Other Parties Signing, Communist Party of Aotearoa, Galizan People's Union-UPG, Communist Party of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Proletariat Schweiz

[18] Joint Statement of Communist and Workers’ Parties (initiated by CP of Greece): The peoples must strengthen the struggle against NATO and imperialist plans, 7/1/2021, http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-of-Greece-Joint-Statement-of-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-The-peoples-must-strengthen-the-struggle-against-NATO-and-imperialist-plans/; SolidNet Parties signing: Communist Party of Albania, Armenian Communist Party, Party of Labour of Austria, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Communist Party of Belgium, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Bulgaria, Party of the Bulgarian Communists, Socialist Workers' Party of Croatia, Communist Party of Bohemia &Moravia, Communist Party of Finland, Communist Party of Greece, Hungarian Workers' Party, Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, Tudeh Party of Iran, Workers' Party of Ireland, Socialist movement of Kazakhstan, Communist Party of Mexico, New Communist Party of the Netherlands, Communist Party of Norway, Communist Party of Pakistan, Philippine Communist Party (PKP 1930), Communist Party of Poland, Russian Communist Workers Party - CPSU, New Communist Party of Yugoslavia, Communists of Serbia, Communist Party of the Workers of Spain, Communist Party of Sri Lanka , Communist Party of Swaziland, Communist Party of Sweden, Communist Party of Turkey, Syrian Communist Party, Syrian Communist Party - unified, Communist Party of Ukraine, Union of Communists of Ukraine, , Other Parties signing, Communist Worker’s Party of Finland, COMMUNISTS Revolutionary Party (France), National Association of Communists of France, Pole of Communist Revival in France, Communist Front (Italy), Swiss Communist Party, Party of Communists USA

[19] Facundo Alvaredo, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman: World Inequality Report 2018, p. 9

[20] Nos hemos ocupado del creciente número de capitalistas monopolistas y corporaciones en China en varios trabajos. Ver p. Ej. Michael Pröbsting: China is Definitely the Place where You Want to Be (If You are a Billionaire). Following the Latest Report of the Hurun Global Rich List, 8.3.2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-is-definitely-the-place-where-you-want-to-be-if-you-are-a-billionaire/; by the same author: China passes the US on Global Business Ranking for the first time. New data on global corporations reflects China’s rise as an imperialist Great Power, 23 de julio de 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-another-so-called-success-of-the-stalinist-capitalist-regime/

[21] Hurun Global Rich List 2021, 2.3.2021, https://www.hurun.net/en-US/Info/Detail?num=LWAS8B997XUP

[22] Fortune Global 500, August 2020, https://fortune.com/global500/ (las cifras de la acción son cálculo nuestro)

[23] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

[24] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

[25] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

[26] Alessandro Nicita and Carlos Razo: China: The rise of a trade titan, UNCTAD, 27 April 2021, https://unctad.org/news/china-rise-trade-titan

[27] Consulte el Capítulo II de nuestro libro de Michael Pröbsting: La Contrarrevolución del COVID-19: Qué es y Cómo Combatirla. Un análisis y una estrategia marxistas para la lucha revolucionaria, RCIT Books, Viena 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/la-contrarrevoluci%C3%B3n-del-covid-19-qu%C3%A9-es-y-c%C3%B3mo-combatirla/

[28] Para más declaraciones "patrióticas" del KKE con fuentes, ver p. Ej. Michael Pröbsting: Stalinist Chauvinism: The Example of the Greek KKE. Is “Defending the Sovereign Rights of Greece” against Turkey and Macedonia Legitimate? Marxist Internationalism versus Bourgeois Social-Chauvinism, 12 November 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-greek-kke-and-stalinist-chauvinism/. Para un análisis crítico del KKE, consulte también el libro de Michael Pröbsting: Greece: A Modern Semi-Colony. The Contradictory Development of Greek Capitalism, Its Failed Attempts to Become a Minor Imperialist Power, and Its Present Situation as an Advanced Semi-Colonial Country with Some Specific Features (capítulo IV.4 Excurse: El KKE y el carácter de clase de Grecia), https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/greece-semi-colony/

[29] Wikipedia: International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meeting_of_Communist_and_Workers%27_Parties. Observamos que, con dos excepciones, las delegaciones del PCCh participaron en todas las conferencias anuales desde 2007.

[30] Hemos tratado con el PCCh en numerosas ocasiones. Nuestro último artículo es de Michael Pröbsting: Where are the Workers in the Chinese “Communist” Party? Some interesting findings on the CCP’s class composition according to an official report of the party’s Organization Department, 21 de junio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/where-are-the-workers-in-the-chinese-communist-party/

[31] Sobre el RKRP, ver p. Ej. Capítulo VIII y XXIV del libro mencionado Antiimperialismo en la era de la rivalidad de las grandes potencias.

[32] Michael Pröbsting: Examples of Pro-Russian Social-Imperialism. British Stalinism and the misnamed “World Socialist Web Site” on the shooting incident in the Black Sea between UK and Russia, 28 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/

[33] La CCRI ha publicado una serie de folletos, declaraciones y artículos sobre la Revolución Siria a los que se puede acceder en una subsección especial de este sitio web: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/collection-of-articles-on-the-syrian-revolution/. En particular, remitimos a los lectores al llamado de la CCRI ¡Salvar la revolución siria! https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/salvar-la-revolucion-siria/; véanse también dos folletos de Michael Pröbsting: Is the Syrian Revolution at its End? Is Third Camp Abstentionism Justified? An essay on the organs of popular power in the liberated area of Syria, on the character of the different sectors of the Syrian rebels, and on the failure of those leftists who deserted the Syrian Revolution, 5 de abril de 2017, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/syrian-revolution-not-dead/; Syria and Great Power Rivalry: The Failure of the “Left”. The bleeding Syrian Revolution and the recent Escalation of Inter-Imperialist Rivalry between the US and Russia – A Marxist Critique of Social Democracy, Stalinism and Centrism, 21 de abril de 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/syria-great-power-rivalry-and-the-failure-of-the-left/. Ver también por el mismo autor: A Revealing Statistic about Who is Responsible for Killing Civilians in Syria. The latest findings of the Syrian Network for Human Rights for the period from March 2011 to June 2021, 2 de julio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/revealing-statistic-about-who-is-responsible-for-killing-civilians-in-syria/

[34] John Bachtell: A new era for building socialism with ‘Chinese characteristics’, junio 14, 2018, http://www.cpusa.org/article/a-new-era-for-building-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics/

[35] Ver p. Ej. Capítulo 13 del libro de Michael Pröbsting: 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, Vienna 2013, http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/.

[36] Ver p. Ej. RCIT: Down with France’s Colonial War in Mali! Solidarity with the Resistance! Let’s transform Mali into another Afghanistan for imperialism! 19.1.2013, https://rcitarchive.wordpress.com/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/no-to-france-s-war-in-mali/

[37] Ver, p. Ej. Michael Pröbsting: France: “Communist” Party fails to Vote in Parliament against Imperialist War in Iraq! 15.1.2015, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/french-pcf-iraq-war/

[38] Ver sobre esto, p. Ej. Michael Pröbsting: The Second Wave of the COVID-19 Counterrevolution; COVID-19 and the Lockdown Left: The Example of PODEMOS and Stalinism in Spain, 24 March 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/covid-19-lockdown-left-podemos-and-stalinism-in-spain/

[39] Vea sobre esto, por ejemplo. el folleto antes mencionado de Michael Pröbsting: “Una pelea realmente buena”. Encuentro EE.UU.-China Alaska: Continúa la Guerra Fría Interimperialista.

[40] Ver sobre esto p. Ej. RCIT: Down with the Imperialist Trade War between Japan and South Korea! Down with all chauvinist boycott campaigns! Class War instead of Trade War! 19 de julio de 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/trade-war-between-japan-and-south-korea/

[41] Vea en esto, por ejemplo, CCRI: Conflicto fronterizo entre China e India: ¡Abajo la guerra chovinista en ambos bandos! ¡Apoyo a los derechos nacionales de los habitantes de Cachemira y Nepal! 28 de mayo de 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/conflicto-fronterizo-entre-china-e-india-abajo-la-guerra-chovinista-en-ambos-bandos/; Michael Pröbsting: The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences. What are the background and the nature of the tensions between China and India in the Sikkim border region? What should be the tactical conclusions for Socialists and Activists of the Liberation Movements? 18 de Agosto de 2017, Revolutionary Communism No. 71, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-india-rivalry/

[42] Vea en esto, por ejemplo, RCIT: Yemen: Another Humiliating Blow for the Saudi Aggressors! Yemeni popular resistance eliminates three pro-Saudi military brigades, 02.10.2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/yemen-another-humiliating-blow-for-the-saudi-aggressors/

[43] Ver p. Ej. RCIT: Armenia-Azerbaijan: A New War in the South Caucasus. Reactionary regimes in crisis wage a chauvinist war against each other. Russia’s intervention would transform it into an imperialist war. 30 de septiembre de 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/new-war-in-the-south-caucasus/

[44] Ver, p. Ej. RCIT: Egypt’s Dictator Sisi Threatens to Invade Libya. Defeat the counterrevolutionary bandit Haftar and the powers behind him! 24 de junio de 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/egypt-s-dictator-sisi-threatens-to-invade-libya/

[45] Ver, p. Ej. León Trotsky: La Internacional Comunista después de Lenin (1928), Ed. Internacionals Sedov, https://www.marxists.org/espanol/trotsky/eis/1929-3ra-internacional-depues-de-lenin.pdf; ver también Michael Pröbsting: Capitalism Today and the Law of Uneven Development: The Marxist Tradition and its Application in the Present Historic Period, in: Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, Vol. 44, Issue 4, 2016, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03017605.2016.1236483

[46] Sobre el estalinismo, ver p. Ej. el libro publicado por nuestra organización predecesora la Liga por la Internacional Comunista Revolucionaria: The Degenerated Revolution: The Origin and Nature of the Stalinist States, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/stalinism-and-the-degeneration-of-the-revolution/; ver también el Capítulo II en Michael Pröbsting: Cuba’s Revolution Sold Out? The Road from Revolution to the Restoration of Capitalism, agosto de 2013, RCIT Books, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/cuba-s-revolution-sold-out/

[47] León Trotsky: La Revolución Permanente (1930), https://www.marxists.org/espanol/trotsky/revperm/rp00.htm

[48] Véase León Trotsky: ¿Socialismo en un solo país? (1934), Ed. Internacionals Sedov, https://www.marxists.org/espanol/trotsky/eis/1934.sociasolopais.pdf. Hacemos notar que este documento no se encuentra en las versiones de Historia de la Revolución Rusa en español a las que tuvimos acceso, pero sí como un artículo independiente.

[49] V. I. Lenin: Speech in Reply to the Debate on the Agrarian Question (Speech at the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. April 10 (23) - April 25 (May 8), 1906); in: LCW Vol. 10, p. 280

[50] J. V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), (December 1927), in: J. V. Stalin Works Vol. 10, August-December 1927, p. 296

[51] Citado en Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 43. Dado que este libro ha sido escrito por un partidario estalinista de la URSS que defiende el concepto de "coexistencia pacífica" y dado que este libro fue escrito en 1955, no hay razón para dudar de la presentación precisa de las citas de Stalin. Observemos de pasada que los historiadores tienen que utilizar este tipo de fuentes ya que la burocracia estalinista nunca publicó las obras completas de Stalin. El último volumen oficial termina en 1934. (Algunos maoístas publicaron un volumen adicional pero muy incompleto en la década de 1970, que abarca los años 1934-40). Además, incluso estas obras están incompletas. Se omitieron numerosas declaraciones vergonzosas de Stalin. Los burócratas no pudieron resolver el problema de que personas que fueron elogiadas por Stalin en un discurso público en un año, fueran asesinadas al año siguiente por ser un “agente fascista de Hitler”. Del mismo modo, ¿qué hacer con los artículos que alababan la democracia antifascista de Francia cuando seguían con valoraciones de la Alemania de Hitler "amante de la paz", que más tarde, nuevamente, fueron reemplazadas por discursos públicos sobre la amistad eterna entre la URSS y los británicos que se dieron más tarde…? La única solución posible a los zigzags eclécticos era… detener la publicación de las obras de Stalin. Finalmente, dado que la burocracia soviética se distanció más tarde de Stalin y del "período del culto a la personalidad", tenían una razón adicional para dejar que las "obras" de Stalin (si se usa una palabra tan cortés) permanecieran enterradas. Por cierto: lo mismo ocurre con las obras de Mao Zedong. A pesar de que fue un líder del PCCh desde finales de la década de 1920 en adelante y un líder del estado chino hasta su muerte en 1976, … ¡existen solo cinco volúmenes de Obras Seleccionadas! ¿No tenía el estado chino los recursos para publicar las obras completas de su fundador? ¿No era Mao lo suficientemente importante para tal esfuerzo? Bueno, ¡saque sus propias conclusiones!

[52] Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard (March 1, 1936), in: J. V. Stalin Works Vol. 14, 1934-40, p. 144

[53] Citado en Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 49.

[54] Citado en Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 50.

[55] Hemos tratado esto con más detalle en nuestro libro mencionado anteriormente de Michael Pröbsting: Antiimperialismo en la Era de la Rivalidad de Grandes Potencias. Véase también el folleto mencionado anteriormente, 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.

[56] Ver p. Ej. de una resolución del congreso mundial de los trotskistas de 1936: “Los estalinistas alemanes en emigración se han convertido en socialpatriotas invertidos, transformándose de campeones nacionalistas contra el Tratado de Paz de Versalles en defensores del status quo creado por este mismo tratado. De la posición actual del estalinista alemán se desprende que se transformarán en verdaderos social-patriotas tan pronto como la dictadura fascista en Alemania sea reemplazada por otro tipo de régimen burgués”. (The Evolution of the Comintern. Resolution of the First Conference for the Fourth International in July 1936, en: Documents of the Fourth International, New York 1973, p. 127)

[57] European Commission: European Union, Trade in goods with China, 2 de junio de 2021, p. 9

[58] Chris Devonshire-Ellis: European Union Member States Who Joined China’s Belt And Road Initiative Are Seeing Their Exports Rise Faster By Nearly 5% More Than Those Who Have Not, Nov 20, 2020, https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/11/20/european-union-member-states-who-joined-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-are-seeing-their-exports-rise-faster-by-nearly-5-more-than-those-who-have-not/

[59] Finbarr Bermingham: Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron throw support behind EU-China investment deal, Beijing says, 5de julio de 2021 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3139925/xi-jinping-angela-merkel-and-emmanuel-macron-throw-support?utm_source=rss_feed

[60] Vea en esto, por ejemplo, en el capítulo 13 de nuestro libro antes mencionado The Great Robbery of the South.

[61] Ibidem.

[62] Vea en esto, por ejemplo en el capítulo XXVIII del libro mencionado Antiimperialismo en la era de la rivalidad de las grandes potencias.

[63] Ver sobre esto, p. Ej. Michael Pröbsting: Five days that shook Britain but didn’t wake up the left. The bankruptcy of the left during the August uprising of the oppressed in Britain: Its features, its roots and the way forward, in: Revolutionary Communism No. 1, pp. 30-31 (September 2011), http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/britain-left-and-the-uprising/sp-and-committee-for-a-workersinternational

[64] Sobre la crítica de la CCRI al apoyo reaccionario del CWI a un estado israelí, véase Yossi Schwarz: Occupied Palestine / Israel: Dead End for the Two-State Solution. The Palestinian Liberation Struggle and the CWI’s Centrist Adaptation to Zionism, 12.11.2015, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/palestine-and-cwi/; Michael Pröbsting: The CWI’s “Socialist” Zionism and the Palestinian Liberation Struggle. A Reply from the RCIT, 15.9.2014, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/cwi-and-israel/

[65] Un líder de la IMT nos escribió una vez y protestó contra nuestras críticas. Se refirió a un artículo en el que efectivamente llamaron a China "imperialista". Sin embargo, esto fue más bien un error ecléctico, ya que en todos los documentos centrales (como sus perspectivas mundiales anuales), el IMT solo llama a las grandes potencias occidentales como "imperialistas", pero no a sus rivales orientales.

 

<팜플렛> 두 주인을 섬기는 시종

스탈린주의와 제국주의 신냉전

미하엘 프뢰브스팅, 혁명적 공산주의인터내셔널 동맹 (RCIT) 국제서기, 2021 7 10, www.thecommunists.net

 

Download
KOR trans of Servants of Two Masters.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document 296.9 KB

차례

들어가며

 

1. 제국주의 신냉전

 

2. 강대국 군사력 일별

 

3. 성명 모두 골자는 · 제국주의 들기

4. 현실의 속에서 갈가리 찢겨진 스탈린주의 판타지: 중국 제국주의의 굴기

 

5. KKE 비판”, 그리고 중공당과의 형제적 유대

 

6. 백정 아사드의 따까리들 외에 누가 KKE 발의 공동성명에 서명했나?

7. 시진핑 팬클럽: CPUSA 발의 공동성명 서명자

 

8. 다자주의와 평화공존의 개념: 반동적 공상

 

9. "일국 사회주의": 스탈린주의 평화공존 개념의 역사적 뿌리

10. 상전의 하인들: · 제국주의도 섬기고 동시에 국내 부르주아지 분파도 섬기고

 

11. 결론

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

 

들어가며

 

7월초 이래로 제국주의 신냉전에 대한 개의 공동성명이 유포되고 있는데 다수의 스탈린주의 · ()스탈린주의 당들이 이미 서명한 성명서다. 이들 성명이 최근 강대국들 패권경쟁 가속화와 관련하여 같은 세력들로부터 나온 최초의 성명은 아니지만, 성명 모두 내용에서나 서명자 명단으로 보나 매우 주목할 하다.[1]

 

의심할 여지없이, 성명을 촉발시킨 배경은 최근 강대국들 간의 신냉전 고조, 한편으로 서방 제국주의 (미국, 서유럽, 일본) 다른 한편으로 중국·러시아 패권쟁투 격화다. 물론 진영 각각으로도 내부적으로 국가들 관계에서 이해의 충돌과 마찰이 없는 것은 아니다. 그러나 현재로선 그리고 예견 가능한 미래에 제국주의 패권쟁투의 중심축은 진영 사이에 그어져 있다.[2]

 

우리는 스탈린주의 성명들의 기본 사상을 드러내 보이고 문제점들을 따질 것인데, 전에 먼저 강대국 패권쟁투의 본질 세계정치에서 역할에 대한 맑스주의적 평가·분석을 개괄하는 것부터 것이다. 아울러 우리는 문제에 대한 혁명적 강령을 요약 제시할 것이다.

 

우리는 모든 혁명가들에게 우리의 결론에 대해 논의할 것을 촉구한다. 우리는 제국주의 패권쟁투가 시기 세계정치의 핵심 사안이라는 점에서 이에 대한 강령적 대응에서의 일치가 맑스주의자들에게 대단히 중요하다고 본다. 우리는 아르헨티나 사회주의통합당(CS) 동지들 이제는 RCIT 혁명적 융합을 이루어 RCIT 아르헨티나 지부로 ㅡ을 비롯한 밖의 동지들도 이러한 같은 원칙적·반제국주의적 접근태도를 취하여 기쁜 마음이다.

 

 

 

1. 제국주의 신냉전

 

RCIT 이러한 제국주의 강대국 간의 패권경쟁 가속화 과정을 추동한 핵심 요인이 중에서도 가장 근본적인 요인을 들자면 다름 아닌 쇠퇴·사멸해가는 자본주의임을, 시기 경제공황과 세계 정치질서 불안정을 촉발한 자본주의 쇠퇴·부후화(腐朽化)임을 각종 문서들을 통해 보여주었다.[3] 이것의 결과로 지난 어느 시점 이래로 우리는 오랜 제국주의 패권국 미국이 기울어가는 것을 보게 됐다. 한편 그와 동시에 새로운 강대국들이 등장했다. 무엇보다도 일차적으로 그것은 중국[4]이고, 다음 러시아[5].

 

자본주의 쇠퇴·부후화 과정이 가속화함에 따라 미국의 쇠락도, 그리고 그와 함께 모든 강대국들 패권경쟁도 가속화하고 있다. 결과, 지난 제국주의 진영 간의 새로운 냉전이 시작되었다. 흑해 포격사건으로 지난 동안 보아온 바와 같이, 이러한 긴장고조는 조만간 본격적인 제국주의 전쟁으로 결과할 수밖에 없다.[6]

 

실제로 제임스 스타브리디스 제독 <<2034: 다음 세계대전 소설>> 저자 같은 미국 "군산복합체" 대표적 전쟁몰이꾼들이 그리 멀지 않은 미래에 같은 강대국 간의 전쟁을 공개적으로 예측하고 있다.[7] 글로벌 군비경쟁, 서방 열강에 의한 소위 "항행의 자유 작전" 빈발, ·중의 특정 해역에 대한 배타적 지배권 주장 (예를 들어, 러시아의 아조프 해에 대한, 중국의 남중국해 [베트남이 동해라고 부르는] 대한) , 모든 걸음걸음이 군사적 충돌 발화라는 종착점을 향해 가고 있다.[8]

 

미국의 라이벌들은 이러한 전망에 대해 크게 걱정하지 않는 같다. 푸틴 러시아 대통령은 최근 영국 구축함 HMS 디펜더와 러시아 해군 간의 흑해 교전 뒤에 있은 인터뷰에서 "러시아가 영국 군함을 격침시켰다고 해도 저들은 러시아를 상대로 그런 전쟁에서 이길 없다는 것을 알기 때문에 전쟁을 벌이지는 않았을 "이라고 말했다.[9]

 

그리고 중국 정부도 우첸 중국 국방부 대변인의 입을 통해 대만의 독립 선언은 전쟁을 의미한다 분명히 했다. 중국 정부 신문 환구시보는 사설에서 다음과 같이 날카롭게 덧붙였다. "대만과 미국은 다음과 같은 메시지를 받아야 한다. 없는 전일적인 중국 영토를 수호하고 무모한 대만 독립' 행위를 응징하겠다는 본토의 결단과 의지를 오판하거나 과소평가하지 말라. 대만 섬과 미국이 지난 행정부의 막판 행동을 출발점으로 여기고 '대만독립' 계속 추진한다면 대만해협 전역에서 군사적 충돌이 발화될 것이라는 것은 예측 가능한 일이다. 14 중국 인민은 그들의 영토 수호에 각별히 단결하고 있다. ’대만 독립 전쟁이다. 이는 인민해방군의 선언일 뿐만 아니라 모든 중국 인민의 공통된 태도이기도 하다."[10]

 

 

 

2. 강대국 군사력 일별

 

이들 제국주의자들은 라이벌들을 상대로 공격과 반격을 가할 있는 능력이 자신에게 있음을 알고 있다는 점에서 이러한 선포는 공허한 위협이 아니다. 아래 1,2,3으로부터 있듯이 미국은 가장 군사대국이었고 지금도 그렇지만, 러시아가 미국에 크게 뒤지지 않고 중국이 따라붙고 있다. 유명한 스톡홀름 국제평화연구소(SIPRI) "중국의 군사비 지출이 26 연속 증가해왔는데, 이는 SIPRI 군사비 지출 데이터베이스 상의 어느 나라보다도 연속 증가세다."[11]

 

 

 

1. 세계 무력, 2020 [12]

 

나라 실전배치 핵탄두 기타 핵탄두 재고

 

미국 1,800 3,750 5,550

 

러시아 1,625 4,630 6,255

 

영국 120 105 225

 

프랑스 280 10 290

 

중국 350 350

 

 

 

2. 세계 최대 군사비 지출국 · [13]

 

2020 군사비 지출 2011-20 지출 증가분

 

미국 7780 달러 -10%

 

중국 2,520 달러 +76%

 

 

 

3. 세계 10 무기수출국, 2016-20 [14]

 

순위 수출국 무기수출 점유율 (%)

 

1. 미국 37

 

2. 러시아 20

 

3. 프랑스 8.2

 

4. 독일 5.5

 

5. 중국 5.2

 

 

 

이러한 강대국 군사력 추이는 RCIT 거듭 지적해온 제국주의 열강의 전반적 동역학을 보여주고 있다. 제국주의는 여전히 막강한 세력이지만 기본적으로 과거의 성공으로 살아가고 있다. 세계질서의 지난 패권국 (자칭 세계의 경찰”)으로서 제국주의는 감당 능력을 넘어서 어찌할 도리가 없는 상태에 있다. 중국의 부상에 대처하는 병력을 집중할 있도록 서둘러 아프간에서 퇴각 ( 하나의 사이공 최후의 ”[15])하고 중동과 소말리아의 병력 대부분을 철수시키는 , 최근 워싱턴 대외정책의 극적 전환은 제국주의의 뿌리 깊은 문제들과 모순을 비춰준다.

 

다시 말해, 우리는 전쟁과 혁명이 지배하는 역사적인 시기에 살고 있다. 군사주의와 배외주의, 제국주의 전쟁 등의 이슈가 시기의 주요 현안문제다. 맑스주의자들이 모든 강대국 (서방과 · 모두) 제국주의적 본질 그에 따른 이들 국가 충돌·분쟁의 반동적 성격을 이해함이 없이 올바른 방향을 찾는 것은 불가능하다.

 

RCIT 여러 논저들에서 상세히 설명해왔듯이, 문제에 대한 맑스주의자들의 정통성 있는 유일한 강령은 레닌과 볼셰비키에 의해 제창된 바의 혁명적 패전주의 전략뿐이다. 사회주의자들이 강대국 패권쟁투에 대한 일관된 반제국주의·국제주의 노선을 취할 있게 해주는 하나의 프로그램이 바로 혁명적 패전주의 강령이다. 여기에는 모든 제국주의 강대국, 미국, 중국, 서유럽, 러시아, 일본에 대한 일관된 반대가 포함된다.

 

이들 국가에서 사회주의자들은 모든 형태의 군사주의·배외주의뿐만 아니라 경제제재와 징벌 관세 등에 대해서도 규탄해야 의무를 가진다. 사회주의자은 지배계급에 의한 것이든, 상대방 제국주의 부르주아지에 의한 것이든 어떤 제재 조치에도 지지를 보내서는 된다. 혁명가들은 공산주의자들의 유명한 원칙인 "주적은 국내에 있다" 근거하여, 지배계급을 약화시키고 나아가 타도하기 위해 어떤 충돌·분쟁도 이용하는 (레닌의 말을 사용하면, “제국주의 전쟁의 내란으로의 전화 위해 진력하는) 것을 목표로 한다.

 

이로부터 나오는 임무: 진정한 맑스주의자들은 자기 나라든 어느 다른 나라든 제국주의 강대국을 어떤 식으로든 지지하는 "진보" 세력 (제국주의의 진보적 벗들) 정력적으로 반대해야 한다. 혁명가들은 이러한 세력을 사회제국주의적 시종으로 인식하며 노동자·민중 조직 그들의 영향력과 싸운다.[16]

 

 

 

3. 성명 모두 골자는 · 제국주의 들기

 

이제 최근 나온 스탈린주의 성명의 주요 골자를 살펴보자. 하나는 미국공산당(CPUSA) 발의하고 31 당이 서명한 성명서고, 다른 하나는 그리스공산당(KKE) 발의, 43 당이 서명한 성명서다. (서명 명단은 각각의 각주 참조).

 

CPUSA 발의 성명의 주요 내용을 보자. “사실상 나토 동맹의 리더인 미국은 자신의 관심사가 반중·반공 프로파간다를 중심으로 '신냉전' 점화하는 있음을 분명히 했다. 이것은 세계의 모든 노동자들에게 위협이다. 버락 오바마 대통령 하에서의 악명 높은 아시아로의 회귀 이래로 미국의 자본주의 엘리트는 떠오르는 중화인민공화국의 성공과 힘을 자신의 단극적(單極的), 신자유주의적 세계질서에 대한 위협으로 보아왔음이 분명하다. 도널드 트럼프 행정부 시절 미국 정부는 자신의 반중·반사회주의 정책을 점점 공격적으로 밀고 갔고, 많은 사람들이 냉전 대해 이야기하기 시작했다.... 세계 최대의 나라가 빈곤에서 벗어나는 것이 나토 열강들에게 안보 위협이 되는가? 대답은 그렇지 않다는 것이다. 그러나 미국의 패권과 자본가의 이윤에는 위협이 된다. 중국과 전략적 동맹인 러시아 양국 모두 사방에서 수백 개의 미국 나토 군사기지에 둘러싸여 있는 상황이다. 동유럽으로 확장하지 않겠다는 약속에도 불구하고, 나토는 끊임없이 팽창하여 러시아 국경과 점점 가까워지고 있으며 우크라이나에서 반러시아, 파시스트 세력을 돕고 있는데다가 러시아 국민들에게는 경제제재를 사용하여 형벌을 가하고 있다. 세계가 다른 반공 냉전으로 추락하는 것은 용납될수 없다.”[17]

 

KKE 발의 성명의 주요 내용도 보자. “우리 공산당·노동당은 최근 정상회담 이후 고조되고 있는 제국주의 기구 나토의 공격적인 계획을 규탄한다는 점을 우렁차고 분명하게 밝히는 바다.... 그와 같이 ‘NATO 2030’ 침략 고조, 전쟁 준비, 러시아·중국과의 맹렬한 경쟁의 증거다. 러시아의 군사적 포위, 중국과 이란의 표적화, 선제공격 발표, 그리고 대규모 훈련 디펜더-유럽 21’ "국민의 평화와 안전" 운운하는 일체의 거짓 주장에 대한 반박이다. 노동자와 밖의 인민 계층은 소위 냉전 필요로 하지 않으며, 동남아시아, 아프리카, 라틴아메리카, 중앙아시아, 카프카스 지역, 흑해, 남동지중해, 중동 등지에서 어떠한 제국주의적 계획도, 개입도, 전쟁도 필요로 하지 않는다... 그들에게는 위험한 계획에 맞서 싸우고, 나토에 맞서, 인민들을 학살하는 일체의 제국주의적 계획에 맞서, 군사기지와 제국주의자들이 보유하고 있는 일체의 대량살상 무기에 맞서 모든 나라에서의 투쟁을 강화할 힘이 있다.”[18]

 

성명은 다소 다른 뉘앙스를 가지고 있지만 (이에 대해서는 아래에서 다룰 것이다), 핵심 골자는 공유하고 있다. 양측 간의 냉전 제국주의 갈등이 아니라는!? 제국주의 진영은 오직 하나, 나토뿐이라는, 미국과 서유럽 강대국들뿐이라는!? 이들 국가가 스탈린주의 공동성명에 의하면 유일하게 군사주의와 제국주의 전쟁몰이에 책임 있는 세력이다. 반면 중국과 러시아는 제국주의 성격규정 되고 있지 않으며, 오히려 반대로 중국 지배계급에 대한 찬사로 온통 성명서가 채워져 있다. 성명의 결론은 아주 분명하다. 진영 (서방 열강)만이 제국주의이므로 스탈린주의자들은 다른 진영, “반제국주의 진영 (또는 최소한 제국주의 진영) 대한, 중국·러시아에 대한 지지를 제창한다.

 

독자들도 있듯이, CPUSA 발의 성명은 중국 ( 러시아) 평가에서 특히 거침이 없다. 나토의 중국 공격은 "제국주의적" 공격일 뿐만 아니라 "반공주의적" · "반사회주의적" 공격으로도 성격규정 되고 있다. 중국의 부상은 "단극적, 신자유주의적 세계질서"뿐만 아니라 자본가의 이윤에도 "위협이 된다" 한다.

 

그냥 웃기는 주장이다! 중국은 이름만 사회주의 또는 공산주의 나라다. 실제로는 강력한 독점 부르주아지를 가진 자본주의 국가다. 우리가 여러 책자, 논문 등을 통해 중국 자본주의를 아주 세부적으로까지 분석 평가해 왔으므로 (관련 각주에 있는 문헌을 보라), 여기서는 중국 사회주의 신화를 허무는 가지 사실을 적시하는 것으로 국한하겠다.

4. 현실의 속에서 갈가리 찢겨진 스탈린주의 판타지: 중국 제국주의의 굴기

 

실제로 중국 사회적 불평등은 시장개혁 도입 이후 급격히 가속화됐다. <세계 불평등 보고서 2018> 따르면, 오늘 중국에서 소득자 상위 10% 차지하는 국민소득 비중은 41% 제국주의 유럽(37%)보다 크다.[19]

 

중국 <후룬() 세계 부호 리스트> 최신호에 따르면, “알려진 글로벌 억만장자 최대 비중을 차지하고 있는 것이 중국이다. ( 4 참조). 글로벌 선도 기업 비중에서도 같은 그림을 있다. <포춘 글로벌 500 기업> 최신호에 의하면 부문에서도 중국이 넘버1 되었다. ( 5 참조). [20]

 

 

 

4. <후룬 세계 부호 리스트 2021>에서 선두를 점하고 있는 중국과 미국 [21]

 

알려진 글로벌 억만장자 비중

 

중국 1058 32.8%

 

미국 696 21.6%

 

 

 

5. <포춘 글로벌 500 기업 2020>에서 나라별 비중 [22]

 

순위 나라 기업 비중

 

1 중국(대만 제외) 124 24.8%

 

2 미국 121 24.2%

 

3 일본 53 10.6%

 

4 프랑스 31 6.2%

 

5 독일 27 5.4%

 

 

 

이와 같이 서방에서뿐만 아니라 중국에서도 존중 받고 있는 기관들이 중국이 많은 수의 자본주의 독점기업과 억만장자의 본고장임을 인정하고 있다. 그리하여 중국에 "사회주의" 존재한다면, 그것은 부자들을 위한 "사회주의" , 인민대중을 위한 것은 아니다!

 

어떻게 스탈린주의자들은 중국이 "자본가의 이윤에 위협" 된다는 판타지 소설을 쓰는 것이 가능했을까?! 아마도 중국 독점기업들이 미국 독점기업들의 이윤에는 위협이 수도 있겠지. 중국 독점기업들이 그리도 많은 이윤을 거두고 있으니까!

 

중국이 '단극 신자유주의 세계질서' 위협이 된다는 스탈린주의자들의 주장은 다른 신화를 반영하고 있다. 실제로는 "단극 세계질서" 존재하지 않는다. 미국이 절대 패권국이었던 단극 세계질서 존재했던 때가 있었다. 1991년부터 2000 후반까지 역사적으로 짧은 시기 동안이 때였다. 1945년에서 1991년까지 세계정치는 서방 제국주의자들과 소련 ( 밖의 스탈린주의 관료 노동자국가들) 간의 냉전에 의해 틀이 주조되었다. 그러나 일반으로 현대 자본주의는 서로 경쟁관계에 있는 여러 강대국의 존재로 특징지어진다.

 

어쨌든 중국 (그리고 또한 러시아) 부상과 함께 이상 "단극 세계질서" 존재하지 않는다. 적어도 우리 우주에는! 아래 6 7 금세기 시작 이래 일어난, 기존 제국주의 국가들에게서 중국으로의 경제적 힘의 이동을 보여준다.

 

 

 

6. 세계 산업생산에서 미국·서유럽·중국의 점유율, 2000년과 2015 [23]

 

                2000 2015

 

미국       25.1% 17.7%

 

서유럽   12.1% 9.2%

 

중국       6,5% 23,6%

 

 

 

7. 세계 무역에서 미국과 중국의 점유율, 2001년과 2016 [24]

 

                2001 2016

 

미국    15.1% 11.4%

 

중국       4.0% 11.5%

 

 

 

최신 수치에 따르면 세계 자본주의 가치 생산의 심장에 해당하는 세계 제조업에서 중국의 우위가 더욱 높아졌다. 현재 세계 제조 생산량의 28.7% 점한다. 미국은 16.8% 2위를 차지했다. ( 8 참조).

 

 

 

8. 2019 세계 제조업 생산량 점유율 상위 10개국 [25]

 

중국 28.7%

 

미국 16.8%

 

일본 7.5%

 

독일 5.3%

 

인도 3.1%

 

한국 3.0%

 

이탈리아 2.1%

 

프랑스 1.9%

 

영국 1.8%

 

인도네시아 1.6%

 

 

 

세계 무역에서도 중국은 선두 국가로 등극했는데, 9에서 보듯이 세계 수출에서 중국의 점유율(14.7%) 2위인 미국(8.1%)보다 훨씬 높다. 홍콩 수치를 더하면 차이는 벌어진다.

 

 

 

9. 2020 세계 수출 점유율 상위 9개국 [26]

 

중국 (홍콩 포함) 14.7% (17.8%)

 

미국 8.1%

 

독일 7.8%

 

네덜란드 3.8%

 

일본 3.6%

 

한국 2.9%

 

프랑스 2.8%

 

이탈리아 2.8%

 

벨기에 2.4%

 

 

 

세계경제뿐만 아니라 세계정치에서도 단극 세계질서 말할 없다. 세계 대부분의 지역에서 증대하고 있는 중국과 러시아의 영향력을 보라. 러시아는 동맹국 지원을 위해 국외에 군대 (시리아) 용병 (리비아) 파견한 사례도 있다.

 

신자유주의 세계질서라는 성격규정도 틀리긴 마찬가지다. 중국은 정책에서 신자유주의적 방향을 좇아본 적이 없다. 러시아도 그렇다. 반대로 국가자본주의적 규제체제로 특징 지어져 왔다. 그러나 우리가 <<코로나19 반혁명>> 책을 통해 상세히 분석했듯이 최근 서방 제국주의 나라들에서도 정부들이 신자유주의에서 국가자본주의적, 케인스주의적 개입 쪽으로 방향 전환을 하는 결정적인 변화가 있었다.[27] 미국조차도 바이든 정부 하에서 대규모 공공 인프라 프로그램을 시행하려고 한다. 맑스주의자들이 반복해서 설명해왔듯이, 언제나 신자유주의는 가지 자본주의 정책 옵션 하나일 뿐이었다. 다른 모델들, 보다 국가자본주의적인 개입이 중심이 되는 모델들이 현대 자본주의 역사를 통해 존재해왔다. (예를 들어 1930년대 파시스트 국가들에서의 국가자본주의적 개입, 같은 시기 미국의 뉴딜, 2 세계대전 1970년대 초까지 서방의 케인스주의 정책 등을 보라).

 

신자유주의만을 노동자계급의 적으로 인식하는 것은 각종 개량주의자들, 스탈린주의자들, 카스트로-차베스주의자들의 전형적인 특징이다. 이것은 진정한 반자본주의 방향으로 싸우는 것을 피하는 도움이 것이다. 그리고 동시에 부르주아지의 다른 분파, 이른바 " 신자유주의" 분파를 지지하는 자신들의 정책을 정당화하는 도움이 것이다. 이런 맥락에서 CPUSA(미국공산당) 발의 성명의 다음과 같은 대목을 주목할 필요가 있다. "일각에서는 대통령 당선으로 미국이 중화인민공화국에 대해 적대적으로 있기를 바랐을 수도 있지만 이제는 크게 실망할 것이다. 많은 면에서 바이든 대통령의 대외정책은 중국과 최대 전략적 동맹국인 러시아에 대한 적대를 증폭시켰다." 이것은 자신에 대한 의도치 않은 조롱이다. CPUSA 지난 대선에서 열정적으로 바이든 투표 캠페인을 전개한 세력 하나였다!

 

 

 

5. KKE 비판”, 그리고 중공당과의 형제적 유대

 

KKE(그리스공산당) 발의 성명은 중국의 사회주의 찬양하는 보다 신중하다. 이는 KKE 지도부의 어떤 반제국주의적 원칙 때문이 아니다. 우리가 동안 지적해왔듯이, 부르주아 사회애국주의는 KKE 정치적 DNA 깊이 자리 잡고 있다. KKE 그리스에 대해 제국주의 나라로 성격규정 하면서도, 2018 공식 집회에서 디미트리스 쿠촘바스 총서기의 입을 통해 다음과 같이 선언했다. “우리 공산주의자들은, 우리의 일백년 역사를 통해 언제나 그래왔듯이 우리의 영토보전과 주권 수호에 앞장 것이다. 감히 그리스를 공격하는 외국 침입자는 누구든 전멸될 있도록 것이다.”[28]

 

그리하여 KKE 중국에 대한 비판적 자세는 반제국주의 강령에 바탕을 것이 아니라, 중국 자본가들을 현실에서 직접적으로 경험해 것에 바탕을 것이다. 중국 거대 국유기업 하나인 COSCO(중국원양운수그룹) 그리스 최대 항만인 피레우스 항을 인수한 , 경영진이 곧바로 모든 노동조합 활동을 금지하는 조치를 취했다. KKE 주도 노조운동 단체 페임 (PAME) 항만 노동자들 속에 뿌리가 강한데, 중국 경영진의 이러한 자본주의적 반노조 조치로 타격을 입었다.

 

그러나 이러한 차이에도 불구하고 KKE 공산당·노동당 국제회의 중공당 대표단을 초대했다. 회의는 KKE 발의해서 시작된 스탈린주의 당들의 연례 국제회의로서 솔리드넷(SolidNet)이라는 느슨한 국제 네트워크 결성으로 이어졌다.[29] 따라서 KKE 지도부는 중공당 비판 하더라도 여전히 중공당을 형제당으로 간주하지, 맑스주의자들처럼 노동자계급의 적으로 간주하지 않는다.[30]

 

 

 

6. 백정 아사드의 따까리들 외에 누가 KKE 발의 공동성명에 서명했나?

 

성명의 의의는 내용뿐만 아니라 서명 명단에도 있다. 여기서 다음 사실들을 눈여겨 필요가 있다. 첫째, 앞에서 이미 언급한 바와 같이, 성명의 서로 다른 뉘앙스의 의미를 과대평가해서는 되는데, 왜냐하면 성명 모두 제국주의 열강 모두에 대해서가 아니라, ·러를 서방 제국주의 열강에 대해서만 반대하는 입장을 취하고 있기 때문이다. 이와 같이 성명이 공유하고 있는 기본적인 성격은 12 당이 성명 모두에 서명한 사실로부터도 명확히 드러난다. (관련 각주의 서명 명단 참조).

 

서명자 명단에는 가지 두드러진 특징이 있다. 먼저 KKE 발의 성명을 보자. 서명자 중에 규모 있는 당은 된다. 중에는 KKE 외에 보헤미아&모라비아 공산당(KSCM) 있는데 지난 30 동안 거의 모든 전국선거에서 10% 이상을 득표했다.

 

다른 당들은 선거 차원에서는 규모가 작은 당이지만 국내 노동운동에서는 일정한 지위를 점하고 있다. 러시아공산주의노동자당(RKRP) 하나인데, 당은 부르주아 애국주의 당인 겐나디 주가노프의 러시아연방공산당(KPRF)보다 작지만, 여전히 어느 정도 세력이 있다. 그러나 우리가 강대국 패권쟁투에 관한 책에서 보여주었듯이, 당은 제국주의 조국 옹호하는 대러시아 사회애국주의 입장을 취하고 있다.[31]

 

다른 주목할 만한 세력은 영국공산당(CPB)이다. CPB 선거정치에서는 별다른 역할이 없지만, 일간지 <<모닝스타>> 전쟁저지연합에서의 두드러진 역할을 통해 노동자운동에 다소간 영향력이 있다. 그러나 우리가 최근 다른 글에서 보여주었듯이, 당은 스탈린주의 최악의 실태를 보여주는 으뜸가는 사례다. CPB 중국 제국주의에 대한 부끄럼 없는 숭배자일 뿐만 아니라 도살자 아사드 폭압에 대해서도 철면피한 숭배자다.[32

 

이제 우리는 마지막 서명자에게 주목해야 차례인데, 당은 존재만으로도 KKE 발의 공동성명의 친러 사회제국주의적 성격을 명백하게 해준다. 시리아공산당과 시리아통합공산당은, 알려진 바와 같이 러시아 제국주의의 꼭두각시 아사드 정권의 보족물로 정부에 참여하고 있다. 그리하여 시리아공산당과 시리아통합공산당은 시리아 인민을 적으로 대량학살 전쟁의 공범이다.[33] 당명으로 인해 착오를 일으켜선 된다. 서명자 명단에 같은 시리아 "공산"당들이 포함되어 있는 성명이라면, 어느 성명이든 도살자 정권과 상전 푸틴의 시험을 거친 따까리들의 썩는 냄새를 풍긴다!

7. 시진핑 팬클럽: CPUSA 발의 공동성명 서명자

 

CPUSA(미국공산당) 발의 성명의 서명자 명단은 더욱 흥미롭다. CPUSA 자체는 특별한 의미를 갖는 당은 아니지만, 베이징 스탈린주의-자본가 정권의 열성 치어리더다. 얼마 바크텔 대표는 다음과 같은 뜨거운 찬사를 썼다. “중국공산당은 철저히 혁명적인 당으로서, 맑스주의를 중국 현실에 창조적으로 적용했다. 중공당의 접근법은 실용적이고, 사실에 기반을 두고, 자기 비판적이며, 자기 개혁적이다. 중공당은 자본주의 경제를 건설하기는커녕, 중국 현실의 맥락 속에서 길을 개척하여 비상하게 어려운 조건 하에서 나라를 현대적 사회주의 사회에 이르도록 영도했다. 문제와 실수, 단점이 없는 것은 아니지만 중공당이 영도한 현대적 사회주의 사회는 중국 특색 가진 사회주의 사회다.”[34]

 

그러나 뻔뻔스런 친중 공동성명에 중요한 다른 서명자들이 있다. 위에서 언급한 보헤미아&모라비아 공산당(KSCM) 성명 모두에 서명했다. 이란 투데당도 서명했다. 투데당은 과거 이란에서 유력 정당이었던 시절에 초기 호메이니 독재를 지지했다. 이탈리아 재건공산당도 명단에 있는데, 당은 와해되어 의회 의석을 잃기 , 1990년대와 2000년대에 신자유주의 프로디 정부에 번이나 연정 파트너로 참가했다. 시기에 이탈리아 재건공산당은 유럽 좌파당 지금은 좌익 사민주의 당들로 변신한 ()스탈린주의 당들의 유럽 차원의 연합체 대표 세력이었다.

 

브라질의 공산당 PCB PCdoB 서명했는데, 당은 모두 룰라의 PT 중심으로 인민전선 연합의 일부로 복무했다. 당인 PCdoB 이전 정부에도 참가한 이력이 있고, 지금도 국회와 지방의회에 의석을 가지고 있다.

 

소규모 독일공산당(DKP) 서명은 특별히 주목할 만한 것은 아니다. 반면 프랑스공산당(PCF) 스페인공산당(PCE) 서명은 실로 흥미롭다. 가지 이유로 그러한데 첫째, 모두 규모 있는 당들로서 국회와 지방의회에 의석이 있고 몇몇 시장도 있다. PCF 1980년대 미테랑 정부의 일부였고 1997-2002년에는 조스팽 정부의 일부였다. PCF 2012-17년에 올랑드 정부를 지지했다. 스페인 PCE 심지어 산체스 정부의 일부다.

 

둘째, 당의 서명이 특별히 주목을 끄는 것은 모두 유럽좌파당(EL) 일원이기 때문이다. 실제로 프랑스와 스페인의 당은 그리스 급진좌파연합(SYRIZA) 독일 좌파당(LINKE) 함께 유럽좌파당 내에서 가장 중요한 세력이다. 통상적으로 이들 유럽좌파당 세력은 KKE 계열 당들과 공동 행동을 하지 않는다. 알려진 바와 같이, KKE SYRIZA 반역정당이라고 부른다. SYRIZA 당시 집권당 시절 (2015-19) 제국주의 EU 각서가 지시하는 파괴적인 긴축안을 시행했기 때문이다.

 

마지막으로 PCF PCE 서명이 특별한 하나의 이유는, 당들이 제국주의 나토 동맹에 속해 있는 나라 연립정부의 일원 과거 또는 현재에 이기 때문이다. 이러한 사실들만으로도 스탈린주의 당들이 어떤 식으로든 "반제국주의" 아니라는 것을 있다. 우리가 지난 문서들에서도 지적했듯이 PCF 1999 NATO 세르비아 전쟁과 2001 아프가니스탄 침공에 참가한 조스팽 정부의 일부였다.[35] 2013 PCF 프랑스의 말리 군사 개입에 단지 건성으로만 반대했다.[36] 마찬가지로, PCF 프랑스 군대가 이라크에 이른바 ()IS 연합의 일부로 참가하는 것에도 반대하지 않았다.[37]

 

2020 1 이래로 산체스 정부의 일원이 PCE (팬데믹을 핑계로) 대규모 통행금지령을 내려 거리에 군대를 배치하는 등의 보나파르트주의 록다운 정책에 전력투구하고 있다.[38]

 

 

 

8. 다자주의와 평화공존의 개념: 반동적 공상

 

서명 명단의 의미와 그것이 말해주는 당들의 계급적 성격에 대해 논의하기 전에, 우리는 논의 중인 사안과 밀접히 관련 있는 스탈린주의의 중심적인 정치 개념 하나를 다루고자 한다. 위에서 지적했듯이, 당들의 · 지지 핵심 논거는 "단극 세계질서" 비판이다. 이미 설명했듯이, 그러한 세계질서는 이상 존재하지 않는다. 그러나 지점에서 우리에게 있는 것은 스탈린주의자들의 대체 개념은 무엇인가 하는 문제다.

 

그들의 대안 키워드는 "다자주의" "평화공존"이다. “다자주의 개념은 단순하다. 하나의 절대적 패권국 대신에 서로를 대등하게 취급하는 여러 열강이 있어야 한다는 것이다. “평화공존 개념은 이러한 열강들이 충돌·분쟁과 전쟁 없이 공존해야 한다는 의미다.

 

개념 모두 현실 세계, 자본주의 세계와 내적 모순에 아무 토대도 결여된 개념들이다. 자본주의는 본성상 서로 다른 자본가들 간의 경쟁과 서로 다른 열강들 간의 패권다툼으로 특징지어진다. 언제나 그러했고 다른 식일 수가 없다. 영국 러시아, 영국 . 프랑스, 프랑스 독일, 러시아 일본, 미국 스페인 그들은 모두 서로에 대해 전쟁을 벌였고, 20세기 전반의 차례 세계대전에 그들 모두가 참가했다.

 

2 세계 대전이 자본주의 국가들 사이에서 a) 제국주의의 절대적 패권으로, 그리고 b) 스탈린주의의 확장으로 결과하면서 냉전 시대가 시작되었다. 이것으로 제국주의 갈등이 어느 정도 줄었지만, 단지 이는 새로운 갈등, 제국주의 기형화된 노동자국가 간의 갈등이 제국주의 갈등을 대신한 데서 비롯한 것일 뿐이다. 갈등은 무엇보다도 특히 1950-53 한국전쟁과 1965-75 베트남전쟁으로 결과하였으며, 차례의 실제 핵전쟁 위험을 유발했다. (예를 들어 1962 소위 쿠바 위기 또는 1980년대 전반기의 긴장고조). 끝내 소련과 동유럽에서 스탈린주의 관료 지배체제가 1989-91년에 붕괴되었다. 이렇게 "평화공존" 개념은 스탈린주의에 특별히 성공적인 결과를 만들어내지 못했다!

 

요약하면, 여러 자본주의 강대국들이 세계정치에서 강력한 역할을 (, 다른 나라들을 종속시킨 절대 패권국이 없는) 시기들에서는 필연적인 결과로 전쟁이 벌어졌다. 간단히 말해서, "다자주의" 전쟁으로 결과할 수밖에 없다. 그리고 제국주의 국가와 (타락한) 노동자 국가 간의 "평화공존" 평화롭지도 않고 오래 공존할 수도 없다.

 

"다극·다자 세계질서"라는 것이 이론상 오늘 어떤 모습일 있을까? 확대 유엔 안전보장이사회가 존재하는 것이어야 할까? 말하자면 G20 국가들로 구성한, 강대국뿐만 아니라 한국, 인도, 브라질, 아르헨티나, 사우디아라비아 다른 국가들도 포함되는 확대 유엔 안보리가 존재하는 세계질서? 그런데 우리가 이들 국가의 지배계급들이 평화로운 세계를 만들 있다거나 심지어 기꺼이 만들고자 한다고 믿어야 하나? 자본주의는 쇠퇴하고 썩어 들어가고 있고 세계경제 기업 이윤의 토대 공황과 불황 사이를 오가고 있으며 기후 변화는 거듭되는 재앙을 불러일으키고 있다. 여기서 기업들이 경쟁을 강화하고 국가들이 패권다툼을 가속화하는 말고 달리 세계질서가 무슨 모습일 있을까?!

 

스탈린주의자들 일부는 제국주의의 공격적인 대외정책이 모든 긴장고조의 원인이라며 반론을 제기할 수도 있다. 의심할 없이, 워싱턴은 팽창주의적 대외정책을 추구한다. 그러나 오직 제국주의 국가만, 또는 심지어 자본주의 국가만 공격적이고 다른 모든 제국주의 국가들과 자본주의 국가들은 팽창주의적 목표를 가지지 않는다고 가정하는 것은 맑스주의적 제국주의론과는 양립할 없는 것이다. 지난 년간 세계정치의 다양한 사건들을 돌이켜보면, 다양한 국가 간의 이해 충돌이 긴장고조나 무역전쟁, 전쟁 위협 또는 실제 전쟁으로 결과한 것을 것이다. 미국과 EU 간의 경제제재[39], 일본과 한국 간의 무역전쟁[40], 2017 2020 중국과 인도 간의 전쟁 위협[41], 이집트와 에티오피아 간의 전쟁 위협, 2015 이래로 사우디아라비아와 UAE 예멘 침공[42], 2020 아제르바이잔과 아르메니아 간의 전쟁[43], 시리아와 리비아에서의 내전[44], 남중국해에서 중국과 주변국 (베트남, 필리핀 ) 간의 긴장 등등을 돌아보라. 이들 모든 국가의 지배계급은 다른 국가와 충돌할 자국 자본주의 이익을 방어하지, 단순히 단극” (미국 또는 어느 다른 외국 열강이든) 이익을 방어하지 않는다.

 

요컨대 미국이 이상 절대 패권국이 아닌, 여러 강대국 하나일 뿐인 세계질서가 결코 평화적이지 않다는 것은 확실하다! 그러한 세계질서는 강대국들 공공연한 패권경쟁의 단계, 일방주의와 3 세계대전의 중간 단계일 뿐이다!

 

일반적으로 말하자면, 계급 사회의 역사에서 제국들이 긴장과 갈등 없이, 궁극적으로 전쟁 없이 평화롭게 나란히 존재한 때가 언제 있었는가?! 그리고 모든 것은 제국주의 시대, 쇠퇴·사멸해가는 자본주의 시대에 더더욱 그러하다. 자본주의의 마지막 시대에 계급 모순, 국가 모순은 이전 어느 역사 시대보다 훨씬 빠른 속도로 전개되고 있다는 점을 유념하자. 독점자본주의/제국주의 시대에 대한 맑스주의적 분석 전체가 쇠퇴기 자본주의 체제 때문에 불가피하게 계급 , 국가 모순이 가속화한다는 인식을 바탕으로 한다.

 

다자주의 개념은 중국과 러시아가 미국과 대등한 강대국으로 대우받기를 바라는 외교적 포장 이상에 아무것도 아니다. 그리고 평화공존이라는 미사여구는 스탈린주의, 평화주의, 자유주의 진영의 숙맥들을 위한 포장이다. “다자 세계질서 평화공존 주창자들은, 객관적으로, 그들의 주관적인 의도와 상관없이, · 제국주의의 시종들이다. 그들의 공동성명은 평화주의와 위선으로 장식을 · 사회제국주의의 표현 이상에 아무것도 아니다.

 

 

 

9. "일국 사회주의": 스탈린주의 평화공존 개념의 역사적 뿌리

 

다자주의” “평화공존 개념은 새로운 것이 아니다. 개념들은 1920년대 ~1930년대 초에 스탈린주의 관료에 의해 만들어진 것으로 "일국 사회주의"라는 유명한 기회주의 이론의 결과물이었다. 이론은 맑스주의자들에 의해 다양한 저작물에서 다루어진 있으므로 여기서는 매우 짧은 성격규정으로 국한하겠다.[45] 스탈린주의 "일국 사회주의"론은 사회주의가 나라의 경계 내에서 성립될 있다고 그릇 가정한다. 인민의 재부(財富) 증가하고 결과로 노동시간이 단축되는 사회인, 그리고 계급과 국가가 잇달아 소멸해가는 사회인 사회주의가 말이다. 트로츠키를 비롯한 맑스주의자들이 거듭 지적했듯이 생산력의 국제적 본질 때문에 그러한 가정은 공상이다. 나라로 가두어지면 생산력은 단지 제한된 방식으로만 발전할 있을 , 결코 발달한 앞선 자본주의 나라들을 뛰어넘을 없다. 오랜 기간의 경제적 정체 끝에 스탈린주의 관료 노동자국가들이 붕괴한 것은 트로츠키 이론을 강력히 확인해주는 사실 증거다. 나아가 스탈린주의 일국 사회주의론은 자본가 국가와 노동자 국가가 근본적으로 적대적인 계급 이해를 대표하고 있다는 사실을 거슬러 평화적으로 나란히 공존할 있다는 환상에 바탕을 두고 있다.

 

트로츠키와 그의 지지자들은 스탈린주의 관료에 맞서 1923년에 결성되었고 나중에 1938년에는 4 인터내셔널이 좌익반대파의 시작 때부터 사회주의 건설을 일국적 고립 속에서가 아니라 국제적 연속혁명 전략 일부로 방향과 경로를 맞추어야 한다고 주장했다. 혁명이 나라 (또는 일단의 나라들) 국한된 머무르면 정체와 관료 독재가 불가피하므로 트로츠키주의자들은 혁명 과정을 확대하기 위해 국제 계급투쟁을 지원하는 초점을 맞춘 전략을 제창한다. 물론 이것은 후퇴와 심지어 고립의 시기를 배제하지 않는다. 그러나 일국에서 사회주의 건설은 언제나 세계혁명을 진전시키는 전략에 종속되어야 하며, 스탈린주의자들이 그랬던 것처럼 반대여서는, 국제 계급투쟁을 일국 지배 관료층의 이해에 종속시켜서는 된다.[46]

 

트로츠키는 연속혁명에 관한 그의 유명한 책에서 프롤레타리아 전략의 필수적인 국제주의 성격을 다음과 같이 정식화했다. “연속혁명 이론의 번째 측면을 이루는 사회주의혁명의 국제적 성격이 인류의 경제 상태와 사회 구조에서 나온다. 국제주의는 추상적인 원리가 아니라 세계경제의 성격, 생산력의 세계적 발전, 계급투쟁의 세계적 규모에 대한 이론적·정치적 반영이다. 사회주의혁명은 일국적 토대 위에서 시작되지만, 토대 내에서 완성될 수는 없다. 일국 내에 프롤레타리아 혁명의 유지는 오직 임시 상태일 수밖에 없다. 소련의 경험이 보여주듯이 장기 지속의 임시 상태라 할지라도 말이다. 고립된 프롤레타리아 독재에서는 불가피하게 대내외 모순이 성공의 성취와 함께 커질 수밖에 없다. 프롤레타리아 국가가 고립된 머문다면, 마침내는 이들 모순에 잡아먹힐 수밖에 없다. 출구는 오직 앞서 가는 나라의 프롤레타리아트의 승리에 있다. 이러한 관점에서 , 일국 혁명은 자족적인 전체가 아니며 국제 사슬에서의 고리일 따름이다. 국제 혁명은 일시적인 쇠퇴와 퇴조에도 불구하고 연속적인 과정을 이룬다.”[47]

 

이러한 사상은 레닌이 죽기 년간 여러 차례 설명했던 레닌 자신의 인식의 계속이고 연장이다. 트로츠키는 그의 <<러시아 혁명사>> 부록에 같은 레닌의 일련의 진술을 게재했다.[48] 여기서 그러한 진술 하나만 보자. 레닌은 1906년의 연설에서 그가 이미 얼마나 일찍이 혁명의 국제주의적 전망을 위해 싸울 필요를 인식하고 있었는지 보여주고 있다. “복고를 막는 실질적이고 완전히 효과적인 경제적 보장을 우리가 말하고 있는 것이라면, 복고를 배제하는 경제적 조건을 만들어낼 보장을 의미하는 것이라면, 우리는 다음과 같이 말하지 않으면 것입니다. 복고를 막는 하나의 보장은 서구의 사회주의혁명뿐입니다. 말의 진정한 그리고 완전한 의미에서 다른 보장은 있을 없습니다... 나는 명제를 다음과 같이 정식화하고자 합니다. 러시아 혁명은 자신의 노력으로 승리를 이룰 있지만, 자신의 힘으로 혁명의 성과를 유지, 강화할 수는 없을 것입니다. 서구에서 사회주의혁명이 존재하지 않는다면 러시아 혁명은 혁명의 성과를 유지, 강화할 없습니다... 민주주의 혁명의 완전한 승리 소소유자는 필히 프롤레타리아트에 등을 돌릴 것입니다. 그리고 자본가, 지주, 금융 부르주아지 등과 같은 프롤레타리아트와 소소유자의 공동의 적들이 빨리 타도되면 될수록 소소유자가 프롤레타리아트에 등을 돌리는 일도 빨리 일어날 것입니다. 우리의 민주공화국은 서구의 사회주의 프롤레타리아트 외에 다른 예비군이 없습니다."[49]

 

1927 12, 스탈린이 이끄는 관료가 트로츠키와 좌익반대파파를 축출한 공산당 15 대회에서 이미 스탈린은 소련과 자본주의 나라의 평화공존이 가능하다고 주장했다. “따라서 자본주의 나라들과 평화적인 관계를 유지하는 것은 우리에게 의무적인 임무다. 우리의 자본주의 나라들과의 관계는 상반된 체제의 공존이 가능하다는 가정에 기초하고 있다. 실천이 이를 완전하게 확인해주었다.”[50]

 

스탈린은 미국 기자와의 인터뷰에서 재차 개념을 설명했다. “스탈린은 1930 11 미국 언론인 월터 듀란티에게 소련이 보는 바의 정책에 대한 대중적인 설명을 제시했다. ‘듀란티: 자본주의 체제와 공산주의 체제가 싸우지 않고 나란히 존재해서는 이유가 없다고 보십니까? 스탈린: 체제는 10 동안 싸우지 않았으니 공존할 있다는 뜻이죠. 우리는 싸우기를 원치 않으며, 그들의 국민들도 일부는 싸우길 원치 않습니다."[51]

 

이러한 접근방식은 스탈린주의 관료의 관점에서는 논리적인 것이다. “일국에서 사회주의 건설하는 것이 가능하다면, 임무는 외세가 과정에 개입, 방해하지 못하도록 하는 것이다. 그리하여 이러한 보수적 개념은 혁명적 과정을 확대하는 쪽으로가 아니라 자본주의 열강들을 달래고 국제 계급투쟁을 이러한 목표에 도움이 되도록 이용하는 쪽으로 방향이 맞춰졌다.

 

"평화 공존" (때로는 "집단 안보"라고도 불리는) 개념은 소련이 국제연맹 (유엔의 전신) 가입한 1934년에 걸음 발전되어 실행되었다. 1 소련과 프랑스는 유명한 스탈린-라발 조약을 체결했다. 조약은 스탈린주의 관료와 프랑스 제국주의의 동맹을 상징하는 것이었다.

 

이때에 스탈린은 제국주의와의 "평화공존"이라는 자신의 공상적 개념을 다시 제창했다. 그는 인터뷰에서 이렇게 말했다. “하워드: 미국 민주주의와 소련 체제의 동시적 발전이 양립될 있다고 보십니까? 스탈린: 미국 민주주의와 소련 체제는 평화롭게 공존하며 서로 경쟁할 있습니다. 그러나 하나가 다른 하나로 진화할 수는 없습니다. 소련 체제가 미국 민주주의로, 또는 역으로 진화하지는 않을 것입니다. 서로가 매번 사소한 일로 흠을 잡지 않는다면 우리는 평화롭게 나란히 존재할 있습니다.”[52]

 

결과로 공산주의 인터내셔널(코민테른) 사회애국주의 세력이 되었고, 프랑스공산당(PCF) 처음으로 프랑스 의회에서 정부의 군사 예산안에 찬성투표를 했다. 당시 트로츠키가 지적했듯이, 동맹은 공산주의 인터내셔널이 1930년대 중반에 개량주의 세력으로, 제국주의 부르주아지의 시종으로 탈바꿈했음을 의미했다.

 

알려진 바와 같이, 국제연맹에 가입하고 제국주의 강대국들과 동맹을 맺는 것이 소련이 전쟁을 피하는 도움이 되지 않았다. 프랑스 제국주의가 "놀랍게도" 제국주의적 이해에 바탕을 대외정책을 계속하여 모스크바에 긍정적인 결과를 가져오지 않자, 모스크바는 1939 8 동맹을 바꿔 악명 높은 히틀러-스탈린 조약에 서명했다. 다시 "놀랍게도" 히틀러는 조약을 지키지 않고 1941 6 소련을 침공했다. 결과 모스크바는 다시 서구 제국주의자들에게로 눈을 돌렸다. 그리고 동맹은 1947 워싱턴이 냉전 시작을 선언하면서 끝났다.

 

모든 동맹은 엄격히 무역 협정이나 군사 협정 (이런 협정이 자체로 노동자국가에 있어 불법·부정의 것은 아니다) 한정된 것이 아니었다. 반대로 조약들은 전략적이고 정치적인 동맹의 성격을 가졌다. 프랑스에서는 PCF 자본가 정부의 지지자가 되어 군사 예산에 찬성표를 던졌다가 스탈린이 동맹을 바꾸자 PCF 비롯하여 공산당들은 뒤를 따랐다. 히틀러-스탈린 조약 기간 동안 코민테른은 "금권주의" 서구 제국주의를 비난하고 나치-독일의 "평화 애호" 대외정책을 칭찬했다. 히틀러가 이상 "평화 애호자" 아니었을 , 히틀러가 폴란드, 노르웨이, 유고슬라비아뿐만 아니라 소련까지 침공하자 모스크바는 다른 전환을 밖에 없었다. 1941년부터 영국과 미국은 제국주의 열강이 아니라 "반파쇼 민주주의 체제들" 성격규정 됐다. 공산당들은 · 반파쇼 민주주의 체제들 무조건 지지하고 이들 체제에 대항하는 모든 형태의 계급투쟁에 엄격히 반대하라는 훈령을 받았다. 그리하여 인도공산당은 1942 8 영국 식민당국에 대항하는 민중봉기를 비난했다. 그리고 영국공산당은 당시 모든 노동자 파업을 "히틀러에게나 봉사할 뿐인" 파업이라며 반대했다.

 

1945-47, 공산당들은 프랑스, 이탈리아, 오스트리아에서 보수 정당 사민주의 정당과 배를 타는 인민전선 정부에 참여했다. 이때에 공산당들의 역할은 부르주아지에게 결정적인 도움이 됐는데, 왜냐하면 공산당들이 파르티잔을 무장해제 시키고, 노동조합을 전투적 파업을 진압하는 수단으로 이용하고, 식민지 인민의 봉기를 평정하는 (1945 5 알제리에서, 또는 인도차이나에서) 등등에서 핵심적인 역할을 했기 때문이다. 역할은 제국주의 부르주아지가 2 세계대전 말의 혁명적 위기를 극복하고 자본주의를 공고히 하는 필수적이었다. 일단 스탈린주의자들이 그들의 역할을 다하자, 인정사정없이 연립정부에서 내쫓겼다. 경우 공산주의 파르티잔들이 (그리스에서와 같이) 서구 제국주의자들에게 항복하기를 거부하면, 그들은 스탈린주의 관료에 의해 비난 받고 배반당했다.

 

계속해서 스탈린이 "평화공존" 개념을 제창한 것은 아이러니한 일이다. 소련을 겨냥한 제국주의 냉전이 시작되기 불과 전에까지 말이다! “다시 1946 12 21일에 엘리엇 루스벨트가 스탈린에게 미국이 '소련 같은 공산주의적 형태의 정부' 상호 간섭 없이 평화롭게 나란히 지내는 것이 가능할 걸로 믿느냐고 물었을 스탈린은 그것이 가능할 뿐만 아니라 완전히 실현 범위 안에 있다고 대답했다. 헨리 월러스가 스탈린에게 - 차이의 타결을 위한 제안을 담은 공개서한을 보냈을 , (1948 5 17) 스탈린은 합의를 위한 토대로 그러한 평화공존의 수용을 촉구하면서, 경제제도와 이념의 차이에도 불구하고, '이들 제도의 공존과 소련-미국 차이의 평화로운 타결은 가능할 뿐만 아니라 보편적 평화를 위해서도 절대적으로 필요하다' 덧붙였다.”[53]

 

1947 냉전의 시작으로 스탈린주의 관료는 그들의 의지에 반하여 제국주의와 대치할 수밖에 없었다. 그러나 스탈린은 여전히 자본주의와의 "평화공존" 가능하다고 주장했다. 그는 한국전쟁이 한창일 때도 그렇게 주장했다. “1952 4 2 미국 편집인 50명에게 스탈린이 보낸 답변서가 발표됐다. 여기서 편집인들은 스탈린에게 '어떤 기초 위에서 자본주의와 공산주의의 공존이 가능한가?'라고 물었다. 스탈린은 이렇게 말했다. ‘자본주의와 공산주의의 평화공존은 협력에 대한 서로의 바람이 있고, 상정된 의무를 이행할 준비가 되어 있으며, 대등함과 타국 내정 불간섭 원칙을 준수하고 있다는 점에서 충분히 가능하다.’ 말렌코프가 (1952 10 5) 소련공산당 19 대회에서 발표한 보고에서 미국, 영국, 프랑스 부르주아 국가들에 대한 소련의 태도를 재확인했는데 자리에도 스탈린이 있었다. '소련은 평화적인 국제 규범을 준수하고 항구적이고 지속적인 평화를 보장하기 위한 목적으로 이들 국가와 여전히 협력할 준비가 되어 있다.' 이는 '협력에 대한 서로의 바람이 있고 약속을 실행할 준비가 되어 있으며 타국 내정 불간섭 대등한 권리의 원칙을 준수한다면 자본주의와 공산주의의 평화공존과 협력은 완전히 가능하다는 전제에 바탕을 것이었다. 말렌코프 씨는 실제적 협력 조치 프로그램을 제시했다. 우리는 나중에 문제로 다시 돌아갈 것이다.”[54]

 

나중에 흐루쇼프와 이어서 브레즈네프가 "평화공존" 필요성을 한층 강조한다. 자본주의와 사회주의 간의 '평화 공존' 대한 모든 반복된 언명들은 지배 관료가 스탈린 자신으로 시작해서 세계혁명을 밀어갈 의도가 없으며, 반대로 그들 국가 내에서 권력을 지키는 관심이 있다는 것을 분명하게 보여주는 것이었다. 동시에, 관료들은 자유와 해방을 갈구하고 나선 자국의 노동자계급을 상대로 잔혹하게 자신들의 권력을 수호하기로 결심했다. (예를 들어 1953 동독, 1956 헝가리, 1968 체코, 1980-81 폴란드에서).

 

보수적인 대외정책으로 제국주의를 달래려고 시도하면서 동시에 자국 노동자계급을 탄압해 스탈린주의 관료 지배가 결국 무너져 역사의 쓰레기통에 버려졌다.

10. 상전의 하인들: · 제국주의도 섬기고 동시에 국내 부르주아지 분파도 섬기고

 

의심할 없이, 스탈린주의 당의 많은 활동가들이 냉전에서 서방 제국주의에 맞서 중국·러시아를 드는 , 또는 심지어 중국을 사회주의 나라라고 칭송하는 것을 반제국주의적 자세라고 상상한다. 사실, 이것은 위험한 망상이다. 자칭 맑스주의자들이 민주주의 사회주의 이름으로 제국주의 열강을 지지한 일은 노동자운동 역사에서 여러 일어났다. 1 세계대전 동안 독일, 영국, 프랑스, 러시아 강대국의 사회주의자들은 "노동자계급의 이익을 방어한다" 이름으로 지배계급에게로 결집했다. 일부는 외국 강대국을 지지했다.[55] 1930년대 40년대에 사민주의자들, 스탈린주의자들, 중도주의자들은 "반파시즘"이라는 이름으로 ·· 제국주의 지지를 제창했다. 독일·오스트리아의 개량주의자들은 "자기 조국" 맞서 · 제국주의의 지지자가 되었다. 인도의 스탈린주의자들은 노동자·농민에게 영국군에 입대하여 식민 상전을 위해 복무하라고 촉구했다 (영국이 주적이고 나치 독일이 평화 애호 동맹국이었던 1939-41 시기 동안을 제외하고).

 

계급의 적을 섬기는 모든 배신행위가 "사회주의" 이름으로 저질러졌다. 실제로 이것은 맑스주의 고전의 기본 가르침에 대한 가장 중대한 위반이었다. 레닌과 트로츠키는 내외 지배계급에 대한 이러한 계급협조 정책을 "사회제국주의" 입으로는 사회주의 실제로는 제국주의인 성격규정 했다.

 

우리가 여러 글에서 거듭 지적했듯이, 서방 강대국과의 냉전에서 직간접으로 ·러를 드는 것은 친중·친러 사회제국주의자들에게는 가장 중요한 일이다. 그것은 1 세계대전에서 개량주의 정책과 2 세계대전에서 사민주의·스탈린주의·중도주의 정책의 연장이고 계속이다.

 

이와는 반대로 맑스주의자들은 노동자·피억압자의 독립적·국제주의적 이익을 방어한다. 미국·서유럽·일본도, 중국·러시아도 지지 거부, 양대 강대국 진영으로부터 (3 입장에서의) “중립 아니라, (노동자계급의 반제국주의 입장에서) 양대 진영 반대”, 각각의 모든 강대국의 배외주의·군사주의에 반대, 서방 제국주의와 · 제국주의 ( 양측 각각의 대리인들) 양측 모두에 맞서 피억압 인민의 해방투쟁 지지, 노동자·피억압자가 최종적으로 지배계급을 타도할 있도록 혁명적 투쟁을 확대 강화하기 위해 지배계급의 모든 어려움을 이용하는 , 또는 강대국을 섬기고 있는 노동자·민중운동 내부의 모든 부르주아 하수인들에 맞서 싸우는 . 항목들이 진정한 반제국주의 원칙들이다.

 

이미 다른 글들에서 많이 다루었으므로, 여기서 스탈린주의자들의 친중· 사회제국주의 정치를 세부적으로 다루지는 않을 것이다. 다만, 쉽게 간과될 있는 가지 관련 이슈에 독자들의 주목을 촉구하고자 한다. 베이징·모스크바에 줄을 러시아, 중국, 시리아 밖의 나라들의 스탈린주의자들은 자신의 지배계급을 섬기는 비속한 사회제국주의자들이다. 이에 비해 서방국 스탈린주의자들의 경우는 상황이 다르다. 서방 나라에서 세력은, 레닌과 트로츠키가 지적했듯이 "전도된 사회제국주의자들"이다.[56] 그들은 내국 제국주의 부르주아지가 아니라 외국 제국주의 부르주아지를 섬긴다.

 

우리가 여기서 지적하고 싶은 것은 이런 것이다. 우리가 말했듯이, - 세력권 밖의 스탈린주의자들은 베이징·모스크바의 지배계급을 섬기는 "전도된 사회제국주의자들"이다. 그러나 이게 다가 아니다. 그들은 또한 국의, 국내의 부르주아지 분파의 이익에 봉사하고 있다. 잠시 이에 대해 설명해보자.

 

알려진 바와 같이, 유럽 부르주아지 분파들, 브라질, 남아공, 인도, 일본 밖의 많은 나라의 자본가계급 분파들이 중국과 긴밀한 사업 관계를 맺고 있으며, 그리고 보다는 하지만 러시아와도 맺고 있다. 미국에도 중국과 긴밀하고 중단 없는 교역관계가 존재했던 '좋았던 시절' 지속을 바라는 독점 부르주아지 분파 (그리 작지 않은 규모의 분파) 있다. 브라질, 아르헨티나, 남아시아·동남아시아 나라들, 터키, 남아공 주요 반식민지 나라의 자본가계급 상당 분파들이 중국의 투자와 무역을 그들의 사업 기회에 결정적 요인으로 보고 있다. 유럽 기업들은 중국 시장이 (북미, 유럽과는 대조적으로) 여전히 확대되고 있기 때문에 중국 시장을 가장 중요하게 여긴다. 중국이 이제 미국을 제치고 EU 가장 중요한 무역 파트너로 부상한 사실이 생생한 방증이다. ( 10 참조).

 

 

 

10. 2020 EU 무역 파트너 상위 5개국 [57]

 

EU 대외무역 총액 364607800 유로 100%

 

1 중국 58673700 유로 16.1%

 

2 미국 55623000 유로 15.3%

 

3 영국 44496600 유로 12.2%

 

4 스위스 25096700 유로 6.9%

 

5 러시아 17401400 유로 4.8%

 

 

 

중국 제국주의의 일대일로 사업 말하자면, 중국판 마셜 플랜 대한 많은 국가들의 반응을 보면 점은 특히 두드러진다. 알려진 바와 같이, 대륙에 걸쳐 수많은 남반구 나라들이 일대일로 사업에 참여했다. 그러나 지난 동안 EU 회원국들도 여럿 일대일로 사업에 참여하기 시작했다. 여기에는 모든 동유럽 국가들을 비롯하여 이탈리아, 오스트리아, 포르투갈, 그리스, 키프로스 같은 국가들도 포함되어 있다.[58]

 

여기서는, 반식민지 나라들의 부르주아지 분파들뿐만 아니라 제국주의와 정치적 동맹관계에 있는 제국주의 국가들 일본, 한국, 서유럽 나라들 부르주아지 분파들도 중국 ( 러시아) 관계를 단절할 의사가 전혀 없다는 점을 유념해야 한다. 이유는 무슨 반제국주의 사상 때문도, 베이징에 대한 무슨 충성심 때문도 아니고, 단지 그들 자신의 사업 이익 때문이다. 그들은 대규모 중국 주도의 인프라 프로젝트에 참여함으로써, 중국에 상품을 수출 또는 수입함으로써, 중국 법인을 주주로 참여시킴으로써 좋은 수익을 있다. 위의 8, 9에서 보았듯이, 중국은 세계 최대의 상품 생산국이자 수출국이다. 이런 경제대국을 무시할 있는 자본가는 많지 않다.

 

그리하여 서유럽 제국주의 지도자들이 친미적인 공격적 대외정책을 통해 중국에 압력을 가하는 것과 중국과의 경제 관계를 심화시키는 사이에서 균형을 찾으려 하는 것은 놀라운 일이 아니다. 현재 EU-중국 투자협정과 관련하여 EU 의회에서, 그리고 EU 정부들 간에 진행되고 있는 협상이 좋은 예다. 다수의 의원들이 협정에 반대하고 있는 가운데 메르켈과 마크롱은 이를 관철시키기 위해 애를 쓰고 있다. 한편 주요 유럽 강대국들이 최근 G7 정상회의에서 미국에 동참하여 인권 침해로 중국을 비판했다. 그들은 일대일로 사업에 대한 대항마로 바이든이 추진하는 인프라 프로그램에 대해서도 G7 회의에서 지지했고, 이어진 EU- 정상회의에서는 무역·기술 위원회 설립에 합의했다. 그러나 불과 메르켈은 중국의 아프리카 진출 확대를 위한 <아프리카 개발협력 지원 사업> 적극 연구하고 동참할 용의가 있다 밝혔다.[59]

 

말하자면, 남반구 나라 많은 자본가들뿐만 아니라 유럽 독점자본의 상당 분파들이 미국의 신냉전 추진에 반대할 직접적인 이해관계를 가지고 있다는 것이다. 그렇다고 해서 중국 진영에 합류한다는 뜻은 아니다. 그러나 적어도 이들은 중립으로 남아있기를 원하며 중국을 불쾌하게 하고 싶지는 않다.

 

모든 이유로, 우리는 스탈린주의, 볼리바르주의, 좌익 포퓰리즘 세력들에 대한 · 사회제국주의 성격규정이 십분 타당하지만, 완전하지는 않다는 점을 말해야만 한다. 이들 세력은 · 사회제국주의자이면서 동시에 내국 독점 부르주아지 분파의 이익의 옹호자다. 요컨대 그들은 하나가 아니라 자본가 주인을 섬긴다!

 

언뜻 보기에 모순처럼 보이는 것을 설명해주는 것이 이중 역할이다. 내국 독점 부르주아지에게, 충성스런 집권 여당임을 입증 마친 나토(NATO) 당들 프랑스의 PCF 스페인의 PCE 같은 어떻게 숨김없는 친중 성명에 서명할 있을까? 설명은 간단하다. 이들 유럽 나라 제국주의 부르주아지의 상당 분파는 워싱턴의 냉전 몰이에 반대하며 베이징과 긴밀한 관계를 적어도 경제적 수준에서는 유지하길 바란다.

 

간단히 말해, 유럽 남반구 친서방 나라들의 스탈린주의, 볼리바르주의, 좌익 포퓰리즘 당들은 전도된 사회제국주의자들 (베이징과 모스크바를 향한)이면서, 동시에 사회애국주의자들 (‘ 부르주아지를 향한)이다.

 

그런데 이것은 과거와 비교할 이들 스탈린주의 당들의 역할에서 중요한 변화다. 소련과 동맹국들에 대한 서방의 제국주의 냉전 시기에 나토 국들을 비롯한 친서방 국들의 스탈린주의 당들은 모스크바를 사회제국주의 정책을 좇지 않았다. 반대로 그들은 개량주의적 방식이긴 하지만, 타락한 노동자 국가들을 제국주의 공격에 맞서 방어했다.

 

오늘 상황은 완전히 다르다. 타락한 노동자 국가는 세계에 이상 존재하지 않는다. 중국과 러시아는 사회주의 아니라 철저한 자본주의며, 실제로 제국주의 강대국이 됐다. 따라서 이상 스탈린주의 당들은 탈자본주의 국가들에 충성하지 ( 제국주의 부르주아지 말고 보다는 진보적인 세력을 들지) 않는다. 대신, 그들은 다른 제국주의 강대국들의 직속 대리인으로 타락했다.

 

 

 

11. 결론

 

논문의 골자를 개의 테제 형식으로 정리하는 것으로 마무리하자.

 

1) 중국 ( 러시아) 사회주의 국가는 고사하고 반제국주의”, “진보 국가도 아니다. 반대로 ·러는 자본주의 세계경제와 세계정치에서 중요한 역할을 하는 제국주의 강대국이다.

 

2) 따라서 냉전은 반동적인 제국주의 열강을 편으로 하고 진보적 세력을 다른 편으로 하는 대립·갈등이 아니다. 반대로 냉전은 복수(複數) 제국주의 강대국 (미국, 중국, EU, 러시아, 일본) 패권경쟁 가속화의 결과물이다.

 

3) 여러 스탈린주의 당들이 서명한 공동성명은 서방 제국주의 열강만을 겨냥한 것이다. 그들은 중국과 러시아에 대해서는 어떠한 반대도 제기하지 않고 있고, 심지어 성명들 하나는 중국이 "사회주의" 나라인 것처럼 말한다.

 

4) 따라서 맑스주의자들은 성명들을 신랄하게 비난하며, 중국·러시아에 대한 사회제국주의적 지지 선언으로 성격규정 하는 바다.

 

5) "다자주의" "평화공존"이라는 스탈린주의 개념은 반동적 공상이다. 자본주의 쇠퇴기에 복수의 강대국이 주도하는 평화로운, 안정적인 세계질서란 있지도 않았고 있을 수도 없다. "평화공존" 가능하지 않다. 독점체들은 이윤 총량에서 몫을 차지하기 위해 서로에 대해 경쟁할 수밖에 없고, 강대국들은 다른 국가들을 희생시켜 글로벌 세력권 획득을 위해 패권 다툼을 수밖에 없다.

 

6) 중국·러시아를 드는 스탈린주의자, 카스트로-차베스주의자, 좌익 포퓰리스트는 자본가 주인을 섬기므로 이중적 성격을 가지고 있다. 명백히 그들은 · 사회제국주의자로서 베이징·모스크바의 지배계급이 부리는 하수인들이다. 동시에, 객관적으로 그들은 워싱턴의 냉전 몰이 반대 중국 (세계 최대의 자본주의 가치 생산국이자 교역국인)과의 우호적인 관계 유지에 강력한 이해관계를 가지는 내국 부르주아지 분파의 이익을 방어한다.

 

7) 이와는 대조적으로, 진정한 사회주의자들은 모든 제국주의 강대국들 서방과 ·, 동서(東西) 강대국 모두 반대해야 한다. 사회주의자들은 모든 형태의 군사주의, 배외주의, 그리고 제재와 징벌 관세를 규탄해야 의무가 있다. 사회주의자들은 국의 지배계급에게든, 경쟁 상대방 국의 제국주의 부르주아지에게든 어떠한 형태로도 지지를 보내서는 된다. 과거 혁명적 공산주의자들의 유명한 원칙이었던 주적은 국내에 있다 바탕을 두고, 지배계급을 약화시키고 최종적으로 타도하기 위해 어떠한 대립·갈등도 이용해야 한다.

 

8) 제국주의 전쟁과 군사주의에 반대하는 투쟁은 계급투쟁의 다른 사안과 분리된 별개의 사안이 아니다. 레닌이 클라우제비츠를 즐겨 인용했듯이, "전쟁은 다른 수단에 의한 정치의 계속일 뿐이다." 그러므로 전쟁에 대한 가장 효과적인 투쟁은 모든 강대국에 대항하는 투쟁뿐만 아니라, 지배계급을 약화시키고 최종적으로 타도하기 위해 오늘 각각의 모든 지배계급에 대항하는 투쟁이다. 따라서 사회주의자들은 강대국 ( 대리인) 대항하여 피억압 인민의 해방투쟁을 서방 열강에 대항하는 봉기와 · 열강에 대항하는 봉기 지지해야 한다.

 

9) 이에 따라 진정한 맑스주의자들은 어떤 식으로든 또는 어느 다른 제국주의 강대국을 지지하는 "진보" 세력에 강력히 반대해야 한다. 혁명가들은 그러한 세력을 사회제국주의적 시종으로 인식하고, 노동자·민중 조직들 그들의 영향력과 싸운다.

 

10) 이로부터 나오는 결론은, 혁명 세계당 모든 강대국과 모든 지배계급에 대항하는 노동자 전위들의 국제적 투쟁을 조직할 있는 당인 만드는 것이 맑스주의자들에게 무엇보다도 중요하다는 점이다. 이런 당을 만드는 과정을 앞당기기 위해서는, 혁명가들이 계급 독립/ 반제국주의/ 사회주의 세계혁명 강령에 바탕을 국제 조직으로 하루빨리 통일단결 해야 한다.

 

 

 

노동자·피억압자! 동서 모든 강대국과 싸우자!

 

RCIT 함께 하자!

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

[1] 올해 상반기에도 신냉전과 관련하여 개의 성명서가 나온 있다. 이에 대한 비판으로는, 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: One-sided and Naïve at Best! A joint call by the friends of Chinese imperialism and the daydreamers of well-meaning global capitalism, 31 March 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/joint-call-by-friends-of-chinese-imperialism-and-the-daydreamers/ [<중국 제국주의의 벗들은 어떻게 착한 글로벌 자본주의 꿈꾸고 있는가> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/one-sided-and-naive-call-by-pacifists-and-chinese-social-imperialists/; 같은 저자: Stalinist and “Trotskyist” Supporters of Chinese Imperialism under the Fig-Leaf of “Anti-Imperialism”. A commentary on the statement “No to U.S. war threats against China!” by the “United National Antiwar Coalition” in the U.S., 4 April 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/stalinist-and-trotskyist-supporters-of-chinese-imperialism-under-the-fig-leaf-of-anti-imperialism/

 

[2] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: 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/ [<<강대국 패권쟁투 시대에 반제국주의>> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/book-anti-imperialism-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry/]. 세계무역전쟁에 대한 우리의 여러 문서들도 보라. https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/. 문제에 대한 우리의 가장 최근 팜플렛을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: “A Really Good Quarrel”. US-China Alaska Meeting: The Inter-Imperialist Cold War Continues, 23 March 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/us-china-alaska-meeting-shows-continuation-of-inter-imperialist-cold-war/ [<제국주의 냉전은 어떻게 바이든 하에서도 계속되고 있나> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/us-china-cold-war-continues-after-alaska-meeting/]

 

[3] RCIT 자본주의 쇠퇴의 역사 시기에 대해 보다 세부적으로까지 다루고 있는 여러 문서들을 발표했다. chapter 2-5 and 14 in Michael Pröbsting: 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, Vienna 2013, http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/; 같은 저자의 다음 팜플렛도 보라. The Catastrophic Failure of the Theory of “Catastrophism”. On the Marxist Theory of Capitalist Breakdown and its Misinterpretation by the Partido Obrero (Argentina) and its “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International”, 27 May 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-catastrophic-failure-of-the-theory-of-catastrophism/; RCIT 발표해 연례 세계 정세전망 문서들도 보라. 특히 다음을 보라. chapter II of World Perspectives 2016: Advancing Counterrevolution and Acceleration of Class Contradictions Mark the Opening of a New Political Phase, 23 January 2016, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-perspectives-2016/.

 

[4] RCIT 중국 자본주의에 관한 많은 문서를 발표했다. 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. 같은 저자의 다음 책에 실린 글도 보라. 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‘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, http://www.thecommunists.net/publications/revcom-number-4; How is it possible that some Marxists still Doubt that China has Become Capitalist? (A Critique of the PTS/FT), 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 (PTS/FT and China). 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/. 많은 문서들이 다음의 RCIT 웹사이트 별도 하위 페이지에 있다.https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/.

 

[5] RCIT 러시아 자본주의 러시아의 제국주의 열강 부상에 관한 많은 문서를 발표했다. 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Russia and China: Neither Capitalist nor Great Powers? A Reply to the PO/CRFI and their Revisionist Whitewashing of Chinese and Russian imperialism, 28 November 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/russia-and-china-neither-capitalist-nor-great-powers-reply-to-po-crfi/; 다음도 보라. 같은 저자: The Catastrophic Failure of the Theory of “Catastrophism”. On the Marxist Theory of Capitalist Breakdown and its Misinterpretation by the Partido Obrero (Argentina) and its “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International”, 27 May 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-catastrophic-failure-of-the-theory-of-catastrophism/; 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 A Reply to our Critics, 18 March 2014, in: Revolutionary Communism No. 21, http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/. 문제에 관한 여러 다른 RCIT 문서들이 다음의 RCIT 웹사이트 상의 별도 하위 페이지에 있다. https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/

 

[6] RCIT 흑해 교전 분석으로는 다음 문서들을 보라. RCIT: Russia Fires Warning Shots against UK Warship in the Black Sea. Down with Cold Warmongering! No support for any imperialist Great Power neither UK, US nor Russia! 24 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-fires-warning-shots-against-uk-warship-in-black-sea/ [<러시아가 흑해에서 영국 군함에 경고사격하고. 영국은 사태를 부인, 축소하려 하다> https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-fires-warning-shots-against-uk-warship-in-black-sea/#anker_1; Michael Pröbsting: “Next Time We Will Bomb the Target”. Shooting incident in Black Sea between UK and Russia shows that capitalism in decay is stumbling towards war, 24 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-uk-next-time-we-will-bomb-the-target/ [ < [· 흑해 포격 사건] “다음번엔 바로 목표물에 폭격할 것이다”> https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/russia-uk-next-time-we-will-bomb-the-target/#anker_1]; Laurence Humphries: Skirmish in Black Sea: Imperialist Patriotism in the UK, 27 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/imperialist-patriotism-in-uk-on-skirmish-in-black-sea/; Michael Pröbsting: Examples of Pro-Russian Social-Imperialism. British Stalinism and the misnamed “World Socialist Web Site” on the shooting incident in the Black Sea between UK and Russia, 28 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/ [<친러 사회제국주의의 예들> https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/#anker_1]

 

[7] Elliot Ackerman and James Stavridis: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War, New York, Penguin Press, 2021

 

[8] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: “Maritime Freedom” A Keyword of the U.S./NATO Warmongers. A leading representative of the U.S. Navy outlines a militaristic strategy against Russia and China, 5 July 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/maritime-freedom-a-keyword-of-the-u-s-nato-warmongers/ [<“항행의 자유 미국/나토 전쟁몰이꾼들의 키워드> https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/maritime-freedom-a-keyword-of-the-u-s-nato-warmongers/#anker_2]

 

[9] () 인도 외교관 MK Bhadrakumar 다음 글에서 인용. Anglo-American tripwire traps Russian bear, July 4, 2021 https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/anglo-american-tripwire-traps-russian-bear/

 

[10] Global Times: ‘Taiwan independence’ means war not empty threat, Editorial, Jan 29, 2021, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1214369.shtml

 

[11] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, pp. 12-13

 

[12] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 17

 

[13] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 12

 

[14] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: SIPRI Yearbook 2021. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Summary, p. 15

 

[15] 다음을 보라. RCIT: Afghanistan: Good Riddance, Yankees! The Meaning of the U.S. Retreat from Afghanistan and its Consequences for the inter-imperialist Cold War with China, 17 April 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/afghanistan-good-riddance-yankees/ [< 가라 양키! 속이 시원하군!> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/meaning-of-the-u-s-retreat-from-afghanistan/]

 

[16] 제국주의 갈등에 관한 우리의 강령적 접근방식에 대해서는 다음을 보라. RCIT: Theses on Revolutionary Defeatism in Imperialist States, 8 September 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/theses-on-revolutionary-defeatism-in-imperialist-states/ [<제국주의 국가에서의 혁명적 패전주의에 관한 테제> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/theses-on-revolutionary-defeatism-in-imperialist-states/]; 다음도 보라. chapters XVI to XX by Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. 같은 저자의 다음 독일어 논문도 보라. Lenin, die Bolschewiki und ihr Kampf gegen den imperialistischen Krieg. „Umwandlung des imperialistischen Krieges in den Bürgerkrieg“, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/deutsch/lenin-und-der-imperialistische-krieg/

 

[17] Joint Statement (initiated by the CP USA): The Communist and Workers’ Parties Condemn NATO’s Cold War Rhetoric, 29.6.2021, http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-USA-JOINT-STATEMENT-THE-COMMUNIST-AND-WORKERS-PARTIES-CONDEMN-NATOS-COLD-WAR-RHETORIC/; SolidNet Parties signing: Communist Party of Albania, Communist Party of Australia, Democratic Progressive Tribune-Bahrain, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Brazilian Communist Party, Communist Party of Brazil, New Communist Party of Britain, Columbian Communist Party, Socialist Workers’ Party of Croatia, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Communist Party of Denmark, Communist Party in Denmark, Communist Party of Finland, French Communist Party, German Communist Party, Hungarian Workers’ Party, Tudeh Party of Iran, Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, Communist Party of Ireland, Workers’ Party of Ireland, Party of the Communist Refoundation, Socialist Party of Lithuania, Communist Party of Norway, Philippine Communist Party (PKP-1930), Communist Party of Spain, Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain, Communist Party of Ukraine, Communist Party USA; Other Parties Signing, Communist Party of Aotearoa, Galizan People's Union-UPG, Communist Party of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Proletariat Schweiz

 

[18] Joint Statement of Communist and Workers’ Parties (initiated by CP of Greece): The peoples must strengthen the struggle against NATO and imperialist plans, 7/1/2021,http://www.solidnet.org/article/CP-of-Greece-Joint-Statement-of-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-The-peoples-must-strengthen-the-struggle-against-NATO-and-imperialist-plans/; SolidNet Parties signing: Communist Party of Albania, Armenian Communist Party, Party of Labour of Austria, Communist Party of Bangladesh, Communist Party of Belgium, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Bulgaria, Party of the Bulgarian Communists, Socialist Workers' Party of Croatia, Communist Party of Bohemia &Moravia, Communist Party of Finland, Communist Party of Greece, Hungarian Workers' Party, Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, Tudeh Party of Iran, Workers' Party of Ireland, Socialist movement of Kazakhstan, Communist Party of Mexico, New Communist Party of the Netherlands, Communist Party of Norway, Communist Party of Pakistan, Philippine Communist Party (PKP 1930), Communist Party of Poland, Russian Communist Workers Party - CPSU, New Communist Party of Yugoslavia, Communists of Serbia, Communist Party of the Workers of Spain, Communist Party of Sri Lanka , Communist Party of Swaziland, Communist Party of Sweden, Communist Party of Turkey, Syrian Communist Party, Syrian Communist Party - unified, Communist Party of Ukraine, Union of Communists of Ukraine, , Other Parties signing, Communist Worker’s Party of Finland, COMMUNISTS Revolutionary Party (France), National Association of Communists of France, Pole of Communist Revival in France, Communist Front (Italy), Swiss Communist Party, Party of Communists USA

 

[19] Facundo Alvaredo, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman: World Inequality Report 2018, p. 9

 

[20] 우리는 여러 글을 통해 증대하고 있는 중국 독점 자본가 기업 숫자에 대해 다룬 있다. 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: China is Definitely the Place where You Want to Be (If You are a Billionaire). Following the Latest Report of the Hurun Global Rich List, 8.3.2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-is-definitely-the-place-where-you-want-to-be-if-you-are-a-billionaire/ [<중국은 당신이 살고 싶은 맞다 (당신이 억만장자라면)> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/hurun-global-rich-list/; 같은 저자: China passes the US on Global Business Ranking for the first time. New data on global corporations reflects China’s rise as an imperialist Great Power, 23 July 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-another-so-called-success-of-the-stalinist-capitalist-regime/ [<중국이 처음으로 글로벌 독점자본 순위에서 미국을 넘어서다> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/china-passes-the-us-on-global-business-ranking-for-first-time/]

 

[21] Hurun Global Rich List 2021, 2.3.2021, https://www.hurun.net/en-US/Info/Detail?num=LWAS8B997XUP

 

[22] Fortune Global 500, August 2020, https://fortune.com/global500/ (비중 수치는 우리가 계산한 것이다)

 

[23] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

 

[24] Hong Kong Trade Development Council (2017) Changing Global Production Landscape and Asia’s Flourishing Supply Chain, 3 October 2017, https://hkmb.hktdc.com/en/1X0ABHUR/hktdc-research/Changing-Global-Production-Landscape-and-Asia%E2%80%99s-Flourishing-Supply-Chain

 

[25] Felix Richter: These are the top 10 manufacturing countries in the world, World Economic Forum, 25.2.2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/countries-manufacturing-trade-exports-economics/; output measured on a value-added basis in current U.S. dollars.

 

[26] Alessandro Nicita and Carlos Razo: China: The rise of a trade titan, UNCTAD, 27 April 2021, https://unctad.org/news/china-rise-trade-titan

 

[27] 다음을 보라. Chapter II in our book by Michael Pröbsting: The COVID-19 Global Counterrevolution What It Is and How to Fight It, RCIT Books, Vienna 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-covid-19-global-counterrevolution/ [<<코로나19 글로벌 반혁명: 그것은 무엇이고, 그것에 맞서 어떻게 싸울 것인가>> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/book-the-covid-19-global-counterrevolution/]

 

[28] KKE 보다 애국주의적 발언들을 출처와 함께 보려면 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Stalinist Chauvinism: The Example of the Greek KKE. Is “Defending the Sovereign Rights of Greece” against Turkey and Macedonia Legitimate? Marxist Internationalism versus Bourgeois Social-Chauvinism, 12 November 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-greek-kke-and-stalinist-chauvinism/. KKE 대한 비판적인 분석으로는 다음 책도 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Greece: A Modern Semi-Colony. The Contradictory Development of Greek Capitalism, Its Failed Attempts to Become a Minor Imperialist Power, and Its Present Situation as an Advanced Semi-Colonial Country with Some Specific Features (chapter IV.4 Excurse: The KKE and the Class Character of Greece), https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/greece-semi-colony/

 

[29] Wikipedia: International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meeting_of_Communist_and_Workers%27_Parties. 2007 이래로 중공당 대표단은 차례를 제외하고 모든 연례 회의에 참가한 것에 우리는 주목한다.

 

[30] 우리는 여러 차례 중공당에 대해 다루었다. 가장 최근 글로 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Where are the Workers in the Chinese “Communist” Party? Some interesting findings on the CCP’s class composition according to an official report of the party’s Organization Department, 21 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/where-are-the-workers-in-the-chinese-communist-party/ [<중국공산당에 노동자는 어디 있는가?> https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/where-are-the-workers-in-the-chinese-communist-party/#anker_1]

 

[31] RKRP 대해서는 다음을 보라. Chapter VIII and XXIV in the above-mentioned book Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry.

 

[32] Michael Pröbsting: Examples of Pro-Russian Social-Imperialism. British Stalinism and the misnamed “World Socialist Web Site” on the shooting incident in the Black Sea between UK and Russia, 28 June 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/examples-of-pro-russian-social-imperialism/

 

[33] RCIT 시리아 혁명에 관한 다수의 소책자와 성명, 기사를 발표했다. 다음의 우리 웹사이트 상의 별도 하위 섹션에서 글들을 있다. https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/collection-of-articles-on-the-syrian-revolution/. 특히 다음을 보라. RCIT call Save the Syrian Revolution!. https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/call-save-the-syrian-revolution/ [<시리아 혁명을 구하라!> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/save-the-syrian-revolution/] 다음 팜플렛을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Is the Syrian Revolution at its End? Is Third Camp Abstentionism Justified? An essay on the organs of popular power in the liberated area of Syria, on the character of the different sectors of the Syrian rebels, and on the failure of those leftists who deserted the Syrian Revolution, 5 April 2017, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/syrian-revolution-not-dead/ [<시리아 혁명: 민중항쟁이 내전으로 전화되면서 무슨 일이 일어났나?> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/pamphlet-is-the-syrian-revolution-at-its-end/]; Syria and Great Power Rivalry: The Failure of the „Left“. The bleeding Syrian Revolution and the recent Escalation of Inter-Imperialist Rivalry between the US and Russia A Marxist Critique of Social Democracy, Stalinism and Centrism, 21 April 2018, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/syria-great-power-rivalry-and-the-failure-of-the-left/. 다음도 보라. 같은 저자: A Revealing Statistic about Who is Responsible for Killing Civilians in Syria. The latest findings of the Syrian Network for Human Rights for the period from March 2011 to June 2021, 2 July 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/revealing-statistic-about-who-is-responsible-for-killing-civilians-in-syria/

 

[34] John Bachtell: A new era for building socialism with ‘Chinese characteristics’, June 14, 2018, http://www.cpusa.org/article/a-new-era-for-building-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics/

 

[35] 다음을 보라. Chapter 13, Michael Pröbsting: 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, Vienna 2013, http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/.

 

[36] 다음을 보라. RCIT: Down with France’s Colonial War in Mali! Solidarity with the Resistance! Let’s transform Mali into another Afghanistan for imperialism! 19.1.2013, https://rcitarchive.wordpress.com/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/no-to-france-s-war-in-mali/

 

[37] 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: France: “Communist” Party fails to Vote in Parliament against Imperialist War in Iraq! 15.1.2015, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/french-pcf-iraq-war/

 

[38] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: The Second Wave of the COVID-19 Counterrevolution; COVID-19 and the Lockdown Left: The Example of PODEMOS and Stalinism in Spain, 24 March 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/covid-19-lockdown-left-podemos-and-stalinism-in-spain/ [<자본가국가의 록다운 봉쇄에 찬동하는 좌익들: 스페인 스탈린주의와 포데모스의 사례> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/covid-19-and-the-lockdown-left-the-example-of-podemos-and-stalinism-in-spain/]

 

[39] 이에 대해서는 위에서 언급한 다음 팜플렛을 보라. Michael Pröbsting: “A Really Good Quarrel”. US-China Alaska Meeting: The Inter-Imperialist Cold War Continues.

 

[40] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. RCIT: Down with the Imperialist Trade War between Japan and South Korea! Down with all chauvinist boycott campaigns! Class War instead of Trade War! 19 July 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/trade-war-between-japan-and-south-korea/ [<· 제국주의 무역전쟁 분쇄!> https://www.thecommunists.net/home/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%96%B4/trade-war-between-japan-and-south-korea/]

 

[41] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. RCIT: China-India Border Conflict: Down with Chauvinist Warmongering on Both Sides! Support the national rights of the Kashmiri and the Nepalese people! 28 May 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-india-border-conflict-down-with-chauvinist-warmongering-on-both-sides/; Michael Pröbsting: The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences. What are the background and the nature of the tensions between China and India in the Sikkim border region? What should be the tactical conclusions for Socialists and Activists of the Liberation Movements? 18 August 2017, Revolutionary Communism No. 71, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-india-rivalry/

 

[42] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. RCIT: Yemen: Another Humiliating Blow for the Saudi Aggressors! Yemeni popular resistance eliminates three pro-Saudi military brigades, 02.10.2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/yemen-another-humiliating-blow-for-the-saudi-aggressors/

 

[43] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. RCIT: Armenia-Azerbaijan: A New War in the South Caucasus. Reactionary regimes in crisis wage a chauvinist war against each other. Russia’s intervention would transform it into an imperialist war. 30 September 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/new-war-in-the-south-caucasus/

 

[44] 이에 대해서는 다음을 보라. RCIT: Egypt’s Dictator Sisi Threatens to Invade Libya. Defeat the counterrevolutionary bandit Haftar and the powers behind him! 24 June 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/egypt-s-dictator-sisi-threatens-to-invade-libya/

 

[45] 다음을 보라. Leon Trotsky: The Third International After Lenin. The Draft Program of the Communist International: A Criticism of Fundamentals (1928), Pathfinder Press, New York 1970; 다음도 보라. 같은 저자: The Revolution Betrayed (1936), Pathfinder Press 1972; 다음도 보라. Michael Pröbsting: Capitalism Today and the Law of Uneven Development: The Marxist Tradition and its Application in the Present Historic Period, in: Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, Vol. 44, Issue 4, 2016, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03017605.2016.1236483

 

[46] 스탈린주의에 대해서는 다음을 보라. League for the Revolutionary Communist International: The Degenerated Revolution: The Origin and Nature of the Stalinist States, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/stalinism-and-the-degeneration-of-the-revolution/; 다음도 보라. Chapter II in Michael Pröbsting: Cuba’s Revolution Sold Out? The Road from Revolution to the Restoration of Capitalism, August 2013, RCIT Books, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/cuba-s-revolution-sold-out/

 

[47] Leon Trotsky: The Permanent Revolution (1929), Pathfinder Press, New York 1969, p. 133

 

[48] 다음을 보라. Leon Trotsky: History of the Russian Revolution (1932), Haymarket Books, Chicago 2008, Appendix II: (Socialism in a Separate Country), pp. 890-913

 

[49] V. I. Lenin: Speech in Reply to the Debate on the Agrarian Question (Speech at the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. April 10 (23) - April 25 (May 8), 1906); in: LCW Vol. 10, p. 280

 

[50] J. V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), (December 1927), in: J. V. Stalin Works Vol. 10, August-December 1927, p. 296

 

[51] 다음에서 인용. Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 43. 책은 평화공존 개념을 옹호하는 스탈린주의자 소련 지지자들이 썼고 그것도 1955년에 책이므로 정확한 스탈린 인용인지 의심할 이유는 없다. 나온 김에, 역사가들은 이러한 자료를 이용하지 않으면 되는데, 왜냐하면 스탈린주의 관료가 스탈린의 전집을 출판한 적이 없기 때문이다. 마지막 공식 출판은 1934년으로 끝난다. (1970년대에 일부 마오주의자들이 1934~40년을 포괄하는 추가본을 출판했는데 매우 불완전하다.) 게다가 출판물들조차도 불완전하다. 스탈린의 수많은 당혹스러운 진술들을 빼버렸다. 관료들은 스탈린이 공개 연설에서 칭찬한 사람들이 다음 해에 히틀러의 파시스트 첩자라는 이유로 살해된 문제를 해결할 수가 없었다. 프랑스의 반파쇼 민주주의를 칭송하는 글들에 바로 뒤이어 평화 애호적 히틀러-독일이라는 평가 글들이 나오고, 나중에는 다시 이러한 평가 글들을 대체하여 소련과 영국 간의 영원히 식지 않는 우의 운운하는 공개 연설이 나오고, 다음에 다시 입장이 뒤바뀌는 그러한 문제를 역시 해결할 수가 없었다. 절충적 지그재그에 대한 가능한 유일한 해결책은 스탈린 저작 출판을 중단하는 것이었다. 끝으로, 소련 관료가 나중에 스탈린 "개인숭배 시기" 거리를 두였기 때문에, 그들은 스탈린의 "저작" 묻어둘 추가적인 이유를 갖게 됐다. 그런데 마오쩌둥의 저작도 마찬가지다. 마오쩌둥이 1920년대 후반부터 중국공산당의 지도자였고 1976 사망할 때까지 중국 국가의 지도자였음에도 불구하고, 5권짜리 <선집>만이 존재한다! 중국 국가는 건국자의 전집을 출판할 재원이 없었나? 그런 노력을 만큼 마오가 중요하지 않았던가? 결론은 독자의 몫이다!

 

[52] Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard (March 1, 1936), in: J. V. Stalin Works Vol. 14, 1934-40, p. 144

 

[53] 다음에서 인용. Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 49

 

[54] 다음에서 인용. Andrew Rothstein: Peaceful Coexistence, Penguin Books, Aylesbury and London 1955, p. 50

 

[55] 우리는 이것을 보다 상세하게 다음 책에서 다루었다. Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. 다음 팜플렛도 보라. 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.

 

[56] 1936 트로츠키주의자 세계대회의 결의안에 나오는 다음 구절을 보라. 망명한 독일 스탈린주의자들은 전도된 사회애국주의자가 되어, 스스로를 베르사이유 강화조약에 반대하는 민족주의 챔피언에서 바로 같은 조약에 의해 조성된 현상 유지의 옹호자로 탈바꿈시켰다. 독일 스탈린주의자의 입장으로부터 그들은 독일에서 파시스트 독재가 다른 유형의 부르주아 정권으로 교체되자마자 스스로를 진정한 사회애국주의자로 탈바꿈시킬 것이다.” (The Evolution of the Comintern. Resolution of the First Conference for the Fourth International in July 1936, in: Documents of the Fourth International, New York 1973, p. 127)

 

[57] European Commission: European Union, Trade in goods with China, 2 June 2021, p. 9

 

[58] Chris Devonshire-Ellis: European Union Member States Who Joined China’s Belt And Road Initiative Are Seeing Their Exports Rise Faster By Nearly 5% More Than Those Who Have Not, Nov 20, 2020, https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2020/11/20/european-union-member-states-who-joined-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-are-seeing-their-exports-rise-faster-by-nearly-5-more-than-those-who-have-not/

 

[59] Finbarr Bermingham: Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron throw support behind EU-China investment deal, Beijing says, 5 Jul, 2021 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3139925/xi-jinping-angela-merkel-and-emmanuel-macron-throw-support?utm_source=rss_feed