“Multi-Polar World Order” = Multi-Imperialism

A Marxist Critique of a concept advocated by Putin, Xi, Stalinism and the “Progressive International” (Lula, Sanders, Varoufakis)

An Essay (with 2 Tables) by Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 24 February 2023, www.thecommunists.net

 

Contents

 

Introduction

“Multi-Polar Order”: A key element of Putin’s and Xi’s foreign policy doctrine

International Stalinism: “Long live workers’ solidarity and a multipolar world!

Progressive International: “Multipolarity“ as a step to overcome “monopoly capitalism“?

Are China and Russia “progressive” powers?

There can be no peaceful co-existence between Great Powers

Historic progenitors: Germany, Italy and Japan looking for “their place under the sun

Marxism versus Multi-Imperialism

 


Introduction

 

As we are living in a period of capitalist decay, it is inevitable that the inter-imperialist rivalry between the Great Powers accelerates. When the cake gets smaller, the robbers fight for their share of the loot with increasing determination against their rivals.

Hence, we have seen in the past years a dramatic acceleration of tensions between the old imperialist powers (U.S., Western Europe, and Japan) and their rising rivals China and Russia. [1] The result has been, on one hand, the trade war between the U.S. and China, [2] the Western sanctions against Russia [3] as well as the armament of all Great Powers. [4] On the other hand, we have seen several major imperialist wars of Great Powers against semi-colonial countries in the last two decades – most importantly the U.S. invasions in Afghanistan [5] and Iraq [6] as well as Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine one year ago. [7]

At this point, we will not repeat the RCIT’s analysis of the current evolution of the Great Power rivalry, the Ukraine War or the rise of China and Russia as imperialist powers. We shall rather focus on a key ideological concept which has gained prominence among many self-proclaimed left-wing parties in the context of the accelerating Great Power rivalry.

We are talking about the theory of replacing the old “unipolar” world order – which had been dominated by the U.S. and its allies – by a new global system which is called “multi-polar order”. This concept has been promoted by Putin, by the Chinese regime, by numerous Stalinist parties as well as by the bourgeois-reformist “Progressive International” whose most prominent representatives are Brazil’s President Lula, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Yanis Varoufakis, a member of the Greek Parliament and former finance minister.

 

“Multi-Polar Order”: A key element of Putin’s and Xi’s foreign policy doctrine

 

Since some time, the concept of “multi-polar order” has been a key element of the foreign policy doctrine of Russia and China. This was officially stated in a joint declaration issued by Putin and Xi at their famous meeting in early February 2022 and in which they called for a new world order characterized by “genuine multipolarity” and “the democratization of international relations.[8]

Putin has repeatedly advocated this idea in various speeches. In his recent New Year speech, he claimed that his invasion of the Ukraine would serve to build “a just multipolar world order”. “Our struggle for our country, for our interests and for our future undoubtedly serves as an inspiring example for other states in their quest for a just multipolar world order.[9]

And in a programmatic speech held in October 2022 at the Valdai Discussion Club, a leading Russian think tank close to the Kremlin, Putin stated: “I am convinced that real democracy in a multipolar world is primarily about the ability of any nation, (…) any society or any civilisation to follow its own path and organise its own socio-political system.[10]

At a recent meeting of China’ Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu and Russia’ Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also confirmed their support for such a concept. “The officials reaffirmed their intention to reliably defend the sovereignty, security, and development interests of the two countries, and to build together a more just and democratic multipolar world order,” the Russian foreign ministry said.[11]

Le Yucheng, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister at that time, stated in a speech at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations Forum 2019 held in Beijing, that China “believes in a multipolar world and supports multilateralism and free trade.[12]

Likewise, Global Times – the English-language mouthpiece of the Beijing regime – stated in a recently published article on their website: “But the world has changed, and a multipolar world has become an inescapable reality.” [13]

In fact, as Rush Doshi – an academic expert on China who is currently serving as senior director for China and Taiwan at the National Security Council of the Biden Administration – has demonstrated in a recently published book, the concept of a “multipolar world order” has played an important role for China’s foreign policy doctrine already for a number of years. [14] Jiang Zemin, the then general secretary of the CCP at that time, referred already at the 1997 Ambassadorial Conference to “world multipolarity”. [15]

 

International Stalinism: “Long live workers’ solidarity and a multipolar world!

 

Many Stalinist parties share Putin’s and Xi’s goal to build “multipolar world order.” For them the main enemy is the “unipolar order” dominated by U.S. imperialism. In August 2022, the KPRF – Russia’s largest “Communist” Party led by Gennady Zyuganov – published a statement with the programmatic title: “Down with American imperialism! Long live workers’ solidarity and a multipolar world![16]

This statement appropriately explained what these Stalinists mean by such a “multipolar world” as it expressed the party’s “support of the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine“ as well as it’s “protest against the aggressive policy pursued by the United States and its satellites against Russia.” In other words, the KPRF statement shows that propagating the idea of a “multipolar world” is inextricably linked with support for Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine as well as the social-imperialist defence of the Russian “motherland” against the U.S. and its allies.

As we noted somewhere else, such a policy of social-imperialist support for Russia and its war against the Ukrainian people is not limited to Zyuganov’s KPRF. [17] A statement signed by 34 Communist Parties which participated at the XXII. International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Havana in October 2022, expressed the very same ideas. [18]

Likewise did another international statement which had been adopted in June 2021 by Communist Parties from 26 different countries show that these Stalinists consider the Great Power rivalry as a conflict between, on one hand, imperialist powers led by Washington and, on the other hand, “socialist” China and its ally Russia which are challenging the US-dominated “unipolar, neoliberal world order”. “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 into 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.[19]

It is not without interest that some of the parties which signed this statement are currently part of capitalist governments (e.g. Brazil, Spain, and South Africa) or were in such a role a few years ago (France).

In short, while the exact rationale somehow differs from Putin and his ideologues, the strategic goal of the Stalinists is very similar: the replacement of the US-led “unipolar world order” by a “multi-polar world order”, i.e. a strengthening of the global role of the Eastern imperialist powers, China and Russia.

 

Progressive International: “Multipolarity“ as a step to overcome “monopoly capitalism“?

 

A similar strategy has been promoted by the “Progressive International”. This is a bourgeois association of various reformist and populist parties including a number of (ex-)government parties resp. politicians. Among these are the U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Lula’ PT (Brazil), Yanis Varoufakis and his DiEM25 (Greece), former President Rafael Correa (Ecuador), the former leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn (Britain), as well as prominent politicians from Melanchon’s “La France insoumise”, Evo Morales’ party, the ruling Kirchnerist party in Argentina, etc. [20]

Paweł Wargan, the “coordinator of the secretariat of the Progressive International”, has recently published a substantial programmatic article in Monthly Review, a prominent U.S. journal with Stalinophile leanings. In this essay, Wargan claims that the perspectives advocated by the Communist International in the time of Lenin and Trotsky as well as by other opponents of colonialism is finally coming to fruition.

For the first time in capitalism’s long history, the global economic center of gravity is shifting decisively eastward. The balance of trade now favors China, and the nations of the Third World are preparing for the end of the era of U.S. hegemony, a period of enforced imbalances in the world-capitalist system that accelerated the underdevelopment of postcolonial societies. The tectonic movements unleashed by this process are sending tremors around the globe. The so-called “Western world,” formed over centuries by the dominance of capital, is impotent in the face of the catastrophes of hunger, poverty, and climate change. Barred from marshaling their economic might towards the betterment of society – a process that would challenge the preeminence of private property – the old colonial powers are siphoning resources toward the protection of private wealth. Fascism is rearing its head, and fresh crosshairs are being painted on nations seeking to embark on the path of sovereign development. In this way, the counterrevolutionary drive of the old Cold War is carried forward into a new century, once again filled with promise and terror in equal measure.[21]

Under the leadership of “socialist China” which “Russia now regularly elevates as a model to be emulated”, a broad global alliance would challenge the imperialist order. “In this New Cold War, as in the colonial wars of the past century, the aspirations of the many to build lives of dignity cuts across ideological fault lines. Today, bonds between the countries of the Third World are hardening against the imperialist threat. China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi, worlds apart in their political projects and convictions, are rejecting the ‘Cold War mentality.’ So are South American states.

Starting from such a point of view, it is hardly surprising that Wargan considers the concept of “multipolarity” as an instrument to fight against imperialism.

The determined resistance to the siren song of the New Cold War underscores the urgency of multipolarity. It is an antidote to the enforced imbalances in world capitalism that have characterized much of the past five hundred years, and which the unipolar moment had secured. If humanity is to have a shot at resolving the civilizational crises of our time – from pandemic to poverty, from war to climate catastrophe – it must build a foreign policy based on sovereign development and cooperation against imperialism’s subordinating drive.

Even more, the coordinator of the “Progressive International” claims that such a new global order with China and Russia in a strong position would help to bring down monopoly capitalism! “Multipolarity is a step, in other words, toward the articulation of alternative political projects outside the sphere of monopoly capitalism’s accumulating drive. And for that reason, it is the most profound threat that the collective West has ever faced.

As we can see the “Progressive International” has adopted not only a key strategic concept of Chinese and Russian imperialism but even incorporates Putinist categories (like the “collective West”)!

 

Are China and Russia “progressive” powers?

 

As we have shown in the previous chapters, the idea of a “multi-polar world order” plays a key role both in the foreign policy doctrine of Russia and China as well in the ideological concepts of Stalinist and reformist-populist forces. The RCIT has always insisted that authentic socialists have nothing to do with the idea of a “multi-polar world order”. In fact, this is a concept which serves the interest of Russian and Chinese imperialism.

In contrast to the Stalinist myth that China would be a “socialist country”, the “Middle Kingdom” has become an imperialist Great Power more than a decade ago. As we elaborated in much detail in our works, capitalism was restored in the early 1990 while the Stalinist party remained in power (in contrast to the USSR in 1991). Since then, a large class of capitalists and global leading corporations has evolved. As Table 1 and 2 show, China has already a larger number of billionaires and monopolies than the U.S.

 

Table 1. 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%

 

Table 2. China and U.S. Lead the Hurun Global Rich List 2021 [23]

                            2021                    Share of “Known” Global Billionaires 2021

China                 1058                    32.8%

U.S.                     696                      21.6%

 

The “socialist” regime of China is in fact a Stalinist-capitalist dictatorship. This is evident, to name only a few examples, by the brutal Zero-COVID policy which provoked unprecedented mass protests a few months, [24] the brutal crushing of the democracy movement in Hong Kong in 2019/20 [25] or the horrible national oppression of the Uyghurs. [26] No, there is nothing “socialist” about China’s regime. As we did show in several works, it has rather become an imperialist power which challenges the long-time American hegemon. [27]

Likewise, there is nothing “progressive” or “anti-imperialist” about Putin’s Russia. As we demonstrated in several pamphlets, Russia too has become an imperialist power. [28] Albeit it has a less strong economy compared to China, it has – apart from the U.S. – the world-largest nuclear arsenal. In terms of ideology, a key difference between the two regimes is that while Beijing rhetorically claims to build a “socialist” system, Putin does not pretend such nonsense. He rather openly admires right-wing monarchist ideologues like Ivan Ilyin and promotes an extremely conservative world view dominated by Great Russian chauvinism as well as rabid anti-feminism and anti-LGBT+ ideas. [29]

Marxists have to be very clear about the meaning of the “multi-polar world order” concept. It means the replacement of a U.S.-led global order by one in which several powers play a leading role. What does this mean concretely? It means that there are several Great Powers which inevitable rival with each other for domination. In fact, this is not a new concept as the world experienced such periods of intense Great Power rivalry in the first half of the 20th century. As well known, this rivalry resulted in two devastating world wars in 1914-18 and 1939-45.

 

There can be no peaceful co-existence between Great Powers

 

The very idea of Stalinism that several Great Powers could peacefully co-exist is completely absurd! There never existed such peacefully co-existence between empires in the whole history of class societies of thousands of years! Sooner or later, the drive of the ruling class to expand their sphere of influence and to increase their surplus product resulted in conflicts and wars with rivals. [30] Why should this be different in the 21st century – even more so as all Great Powers possess large arsenals of modern weapons?!

In fact, it is as we noted in one of our pamphlets on this issue: “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![31]

In fact, the more intelligent among the Putinist ideologues are fully aware of the fact that a “multi-polar world order” is not “peaceful” but rather means an acceleration of Great Power rivalry, increasing military tensions and the threat of major wars. Such wrote Ivan Timofeev, a leading Putinist intellectual who serves as Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club as well as Director of Programmes of the Russian International Affairs Council (the Kremlin’s official think tank): “The world is objectively moving towards what Russian foreign policy doctrine calls a multipolar world or a world without a hegemon. But given current trends, such a world will most likely remain anarchic, with political realism as the key paradigm of foreign policy thinking.[32]

And Timur Fomenko, a Russian political analyst who writes for the Putinist central organ Russia Today, acknowledges that the “multi-polar world order” increasingly resembles the world before 1914 or 1939. “As the US tries to reclaim its hegemony, other countries are subsequently forced to increase their national capabilities and strategic autonomy to prevent themselves from being dominated. This has created new arms races, new technology races, and also the expansion of blocs alternate to the West, such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and more. Whether the US likes it or not, this is the reality of the multipolarity it sought to prevent in the first place. The world now increasingly resembles what it looked like before 1914, or worse, before 1939, where there are not just two rival great powers, but a plethora of nations scrambling for influence. While the US strives to maintain its hegemony, it faces off against the challengers of China and Russia, but there are other rising powers too, including India and Indonesia.[33]

It can not be otherwise. There is no capitalism without competition between different capitalists. And, likewise, there is no capitalism without rivalry between states. As we explained somewhere else, there existed a certain exceptional period between 1948-91 when two factors limited the inter-imperialist rivalry:

a) the joint enmity of the imperialist powers against the USSR and other Stalinist states;

b) the absolute hegemony of the U.S. within the imperialist camp as the result of the defeat of Germany and Japan in WWII. [34]

However, even this period was also particularly peaceful but rather one which has been called “Cold War” and which saw a number of regional and local wars.

Imperialism is a global capitalist system which is dominated economically by monopolies and politically by Great Powers. They are inevitable in fierce competition and rivalry against each other and try to prevail against their rivals. This will continue to dominate world politics as long as capitalism exists, i.e. until the system of private property of means of production has been globally replaced by a socialist order based on direct working-class democracy and a nationalised planned economy.

 

Historic progenitors: Germany, Italy and Japan looking for “their place under the sun

 

Stalinist theoreticians claim that it would be progressive to end the U.S. hegemony. Of course, every socialist despises U.S. imperialism and the RCIT, like other authentic Marxists, has a long record of supporting liberation struggles against the American hegemon and its allies. [35] However, there is nothing progressive in replacing the domination of one Great Power by one of several Great Powers! Why shall we prefer a world ruled by several robbers to a world ruled only by one?! Socialists oppose all robbers – neither the one nor the other is a “lesser evil” for the international working class and the oppressed peoples.

Russia’s and China’s challenge of U.S. hegemony is not driven by any progressive factor but rather by the imperialist desire of these newcomer robbers to get their “entitled place” at the big table of global robbers. There is nothing new about such a development. The leading circles in Germany in late 19th and early 20th century discussed extensively the deplorable situation that their state – in contrast to Britain and France – did hardly possess any colonies. Bernhard von Bülow, Germany’s chancellor from 1900 to 1909, once famously said in a parliamentary speech that “we demand our place under the sun” – which meant that Germany must have a “fair” share of colonies. As is well-known, Germany’s drive to become a global power resulted in an intrinsic antagonism to the British Empire and led to World War I and, later, to World War II.

Likewise did the Italian chauvinists like Enrico Corradini and Gabriele D'Annunzio claim in early 20th century that their country was a “proletarian nation” which came off badly in great power politics. We must start from the recognition of the principle: there are proletarian nations just as there are proletarian classes; nations, that is, whose condition of life is disadvantageously subordinated to those of other nations, similar to those of the classes.... Italy is a nation morally and materially proletarian.[36]

This idea was later picked up by Mussolini and his fascists (Corradini had joined the fascist party and became a senator). In justifying its war against Ethiopia, the official fascist newspaper Acciaio claimed in 1936 that Italy just desired “its place under the sun.[37]

And in 1940, an official “Dizionario di politica” (Political Dictionary) published by the regime stated that only “young and strong nations, which demand their place under the sun” could achieve to establish “a different, new equilibrium of power between the nations.[38]

In Japan, another late-coming imperialist power, similar theories emerged. In the 1920s, the ex-Marxist Takahashi Kamekichi developed the theory that Japan was a “petty imperialism.” He claimed that Japan “is in the position of a country subject to imperialism. (…) Consequently, [Japan’s] international class role, rather than coinciding with that of imperialist countries like Britain and the United States, coincides far more with that of China, India, and other countries subject to imperialism.[39] Therefore, one had to support its desire to become a Great Power. [40]

Of course, history has taught us how such desire of late-coming powers usually ends up. When emerging powers become stronger and challenge the established hegemons, it inevitable provokes tensions and conflicts and, ultimately, this results in wars. It is only logical that a hegemonic power will do everything possible to keep its dominating status. The Roman Empire did so 2,000 years ago, as did the Middle Kingdom and the Byzantine Empire and, much more recently, the British Empire in the 19th and 20th century and the U.S. in the past decades. Likewise, it is only logical that emerging empires try to challenge the hegemon. However, it is not logical but bluntly absurd that there are people who imagine that such a process could result in a peaceful period!

In the end, as long as capitalism exists, one imperialist power (or one group of imperialist powers) will try to subjugate its rivals. Either the U.S. will succeed in keeping its hegemonic status or China – its most serious rival – will bring down the old Western-dominated order. Hence, a multi-polar world order” can not be a stable, long-term period but only a transitional phenomenon. Andrew C. Kuchins, an American academic working for several imperialist think tanks, noted appropriately: “China will continue to pay lip service to the ideology of multipolarity until its unilateral dominance is de facto clear to all.[41]

 

Marxism versus Multi-Imperialism

 

In summary, the Putinist-Stalinist call for a “multi-polar world order” is nothing but a rehashed version of the old imperialist demand of late-coming powers to have their “place under the sun”. The astonishing thing is not that imperialist ideologues of the Putin regime – who did never hide their admiration for the authoritarian Tsarist Empire – pick up such old ideological schemas. It is rather amazing how enthusiastically Stalinist and reformist parties support such arch-reactionary theories!

As the RCIT has always emphasized, the advocacy of the concept of a “multi-polar world order” means political and ideological support for Chinese and Russian imperialism and their desire to end the hegemony of U.S. imperialism. Stalinist and reformist parties have a long-standing tradition of supporting one faction of the bourgeoise against another (the so-called “popular front strategy”). Likewise, they sided in inter-imperialist wars with one camp against the other: in World War I they usually supported their own ruling class; in the 1930s and 1940s, the social democrats supported the Western imperialists against Germany from 1933 onwards while the Stalinists did so in 1935-39 as well as in 1941–45 (while lending tacit support to Germany in the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact).

As we did point out somewhere else, the explanation for the Stalinists’ support for such a concept lies, in the field of theory, in their old dogma of “Socialism in One Country”. According to this theory, it would be possible to establish a peaceful global system despite the ongoing existence of imperialist powers. [42]

Hence, the advocacy of a “multi-polar world order” reflects a thoroughly social-imperialist policy of support for Russian and Chinese imperialism. Some Stalinists in Western countries might claim that they are “anti-imperialist” as they oppose their ruling class. In effect, such parties are as much “anti-imperialist” as were the Belgian social democrat Hendrik de Man or the French socialist Ludovic-Oscar Frossard who “betrayed” their fatherland and collaborated with the German occupation authorities in 1940-45. Lenin and Trotsky called such forces “inverted social-imperialists”, i.e. parties which do not support their own imperialist bourgeoisie but another, “foreign” one. Such inverted social-imperialists are no better, no worse than ordinary social-imperialists!

However, it is not sufficient to point to the support of such Stalinists, reformists and populist for Chinese and Russian imperialism. It is also important to recognize that in many capitalist countries – including imperialist Western states – smaller or larger sections of the monopoly bourgeoisie exist which have a material interest in keeping good relations with China and Russia. As we pointed out in our pamphlet “Servants of Two Masters”, in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, India, many African countries and even in Western Europe, a number of capitalists have extensive business operations with China and Russia. Hence, the pro-Eastern social-imperialists represent, objectively, also the interests of these sections of the domestic bourgeoisie.

In conclusion, it is clear that a multi-polar world order” can not and does not mean any peaceful or progressive global system – it rather means, and can only mean, multi-imperialism, i.e. a world dominated by several rivalling Great Powers. Such a concept does not contain an inch of progressiveness!

Marxists never opposed the “unipolar” imperialist world order because it was “unipolar” but because it was imperialist! We don’t choose between an “unipolar” or a “multi-polar” imperialist order – we oppose both equally! Neither, to give an analogy, do we have a preference between Apple or Microsoft or between Facebook, Weibo or VK! All imperialists and all capitalists “are worse”, as the saying goes.

For the RCIT and all authentic socialists, the alternative to the “unipolar” imperialist world order is not “multipolarity” but international class struggle against all Great Powers in order to replace any form of the imperialist system by international socialism!



[1] The RCIT has dealt on numerous occasions with the inter-imperialist rivalry of the Great Powers. See e.g. RCIT: World Perspectives 2021-22: Entering a Pre-Revolutionary Global Situation, 22 August 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-perspectives-2021-22/; see also 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 the following works by the same author: “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/; Servants of Two Masters. Stalinism and the New Cold War between Imperialist Great Powers in East and West, 10 July 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/servants-of-two-masters-stalinism-and-new-cold-war/; for more works on this issue see these sub-pages: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/ and https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/.

[2] Our latest statement on the U.S.-China Cold War is: Chip Sanctions: Another Step towards War between U.S. and China. Neither Washington nor Beijing! Revolutionary defeatism against all imperialist Great Powers! 25 October 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/chip-sanctions-another-step-towards-war-between-u-s-and-china/. For more documents on the Global Trade War see the compilation of our articles on our website, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/.

[3] We have published a number of articles on Western sanctions against Russia. Our latest one is by Michael Pröbsting: Less Than 9%. Many Western corporations continue to make business with Russia despite the official sanction policy, 11 February 2023, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/western-corporations-continue-to-make-business-with-russia/

[4] See on this e.g. RCIT: Threats of Nuclear War between Great Powers. On some consequences for the world situation and for socialist tactics in the defence of the Ukraine, 5 October 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/threats-of-nuclear-war-between-great-powers/; see also Medina Gunić: Recession, Energy Crisis, Strengthening of the Imperialist Blocs – The World Situation will change soon enough, 23 August 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/world-situation-will-change-soon-enough/; Michael Pröbsting: World Situation: In the Midst of a Global Political Tornado. Notes on global developments characterized by the Ukraine War, inter-imperialist rivalry, global energy and food crisis as well as spontaneous mass protests, 13 April 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-situation-april-2022/; by the same author: A Peculiar and Explosive Combination. Notes on the current world situation, 6 October 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/world-situation-notes-10-2022/

[5] The RCIT has published a number of pamphlets and articles about America’s invasion and defeat in Afghanistan. They are compiled on a special sub-page on our webiste: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/collection-of-articles-on-us-defeat-in-afghanistan/.

[6] See on this e.g. our essay by Michael Pröbsting: The Struggle of Revolutionaries in Imperialist Heartlands against Wars of their “Own” Ruling Class. Examples from the history of the RCIT and its predecessor organisation in the last four decades, 2 September 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-struggle-of-revolutionaries-in-imperialist-heartlands-against-wars-of-their-own-ruling-class/

[7] We refer readers to a special page on our website where more than 160 RCIT documents on the Ukraine War and the current NATO-Russia conflict are compiled: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/compilation-of-documents-on-nato-russia-conflict/. In particular we refer to the RCIT Manifesto: Ukraine War: A Turning Point of World Historic Significance. Socialists must combine the revolutionary defense of the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion with the internationalist struggle against Russian as well as NATO and EU imperialism, 1 March 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/manifesto-ukraine-war-a-turning-point-of-world-historic-significance/; see also: Manifesto on the First Anniversary of the Ukraine War. Victory to the heroic Ukrainian people! Defeat Russian imperialism! No support whatsoever for NATO imperialism! 10 February 2023, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/manifesto-on-first-anniversary-of-ukraine-war/

[8] Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development, 4 February 2022, http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770. For a critical analysis of the Putin-Xi meeting see e.g. Michael Pröbsting: The Significance of the Putin-Xi Meeting. Russia and China close ranks against their imperialist rivals, 5 February 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/significance-of-putin-xi-meeting/.

[9] President of Russia Vladimir Putin: New Year Address to the Nation, 31 December 2022, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70315

[10] President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Speech at the final plenary session of the 19th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club., 27 October 2022, Moscow Region, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69695

[11] Echo Xie: China to aim for stronger ties with Russia this year, top diplomatic official says, South China Morning Post, 4 Feb, 2023, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3209106/china-aim-stronger-ties-russia-year-top-diplomatic-official-says?module=lead_hero_story&pgtype=homepage

[12] Quoted in: Zhiqun Zhu: China’s Grand Strategy toward North America, in: David B. H. Denoon (Ed.): China’s Grand Strategy. A Roadmap to Global Power? New York University Press, New York 2021, p. 215

[13] Carlos Martinez: Decoupling from China, Russia suicidal for Europe, Global Times, 15 January 2023, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202301/1283833.shtml

[14] Rush Doshi: The Long Game. China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order, Oxford University Press, New York 2021, see in particular pp. 110-111, pp. 128-129 and pp. 159-177

[15] Quoted in ibid, p. 110

[16] KPRF: Down with American imperialism! Long live workers’ solidarity and a multipolar world! 4 August 2022, https://cprf.ru/2022/08/down-with-american-imperialism-long-live-workers-solidarity-and-a-multipolar-world/

[17] The RCIT has published a number of polemics against the KPRF’s social-chauvinist policy in the Ukraine War. Our latest article is by Michael Pröbsting: Russia: Friends Among Themselves. KPRF leader Gennady Zyuganov meets President Putin to confirm his role as a loyal servant of Russian imperialism, 15 February 2023, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/russia-friends-among-themselves-zyuganov-meets-putin/

[18] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: Great Power Rivalry: Deepening of Differences between Stalinist Parties. Notes on the XXII International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Havana (and the so-called “Paris Declaration”), 10 November 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/stalinism-22-imcwp-great-power-rivalry/

[19] 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/; see also 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/

[20] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: “Athens Declaration” on Ukraine War: A Disorientation Smoke Grenade. Critique of a statement issued by the “Progressive International” of Sanders, Lula, Varoufakis and Corbyn, 17 May 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/athens-declaration-on-ukraine-war/

[21] Paweł Wargan: NATO and the Long War on the Third World, Monthly Review, Vol. 74, No 08 (January 2023), https://monthlyreview.org/2023/01/01/nato-and-the-long-war-on-the-third-world/

[22] Fortune Global 500, August 2020, https://fortune.com/global500/

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

[24] See on this e.g. RCIT: China: Popular Rebellion against Lockdowns and “Zero COVID”, 28 November 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-popular-rebellion-against-lockdowns-and-zero-covid/

[25] See on this e.g. RCIT: China / Hong Kong: The Beginning of the Counterrevolution. The new National Security Law represents a full-scale assault on democratic rights by the Stalinist-Capitalist regime! 1 July 2020, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/china-hong-kong-the-beginning-of-the-counterrevolution/

[26] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: 37 Signatures Are Worth a Thousand Words. On a letter of 37 states, including Muslim countries, sent to the United Nations defending China's treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, 16 July 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/asia/37-states-defend-china-s-treatment-of-uyghurs/

[27] For our analysis of capitalism in China and its transformation into a Great Power see e.g. the 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 by the same author: “Chinese Imperialism and the World Economy”, an essay published in the second edition of The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism (edited by Immanuel Ness and Zak Cope), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-91206-6_179-1; China: An Imperialist Power … Or Not Yet? A Theoretical Question with Very Practical Consequences! Continuing the Debate with Esteban Mercatante and the PTS/FT on China’s class character and consequences for the revolutionary strategy, 22 January 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-imperialist-power-or-not-yet/; China‘s transformation into an imperialist power. A study of the economic, political and military aspects of China as a Great Power (2012), in: Revolutionary Communism No. 4, 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/; China’s Emergence as an Imperialist Power (Article in the US journal 'New Politics'), in: “New Politics”, Summer 2014 (Vol:XV-1, Whole #: 57). See many more RCIT documents at a special sub-page on the RCIT’s website: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/.

[28] The RCIT has published numerous documents about capitalism in Russia and its rise to an imperialist power. The most important ones are several pamphlets by Michael Pröbsting: The Peculiar Features of Russian Imperialism. A Study of Russia’s Monopolies, Capital Export and Super-Exploitation in the Light of Marxist Theory, 10 August 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-peculiar-features-of-russian-imperialism/; by the same author: 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 (this pamphlet contains a document written in 2001 in which we established for the first time our characterisation of Russia as imperialist), http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/; see also these essays by the same author: Russia: An Imperialist Power or a “Non-Hegemonic Empire in Gestation”? A reply to the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz, in: New Politics, 11 August 2022, at https://newpol.org/russia-an-imperialist-power-or-a-non-hegemonic-empire-in-gestation-a-reply-to-the-argentinean-economist-claudio-katz-an-essay-with-8-tables/; Russian Imperialism and Its Monopolies, in: New Politics Vol. XVIII No. 4, Whole Number 72, Winter 2022, https://newpol.org/issue_post/russian-imperialism-and-its-monopolies/; Once Again on Russian Imperialism (Reply to Critics). A rebuttal of a theory which claims that Russia is not an imperialist state but would be rather “comparable to Brazil and Iran”, 30 March 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/once-again-on-russian-imperialism-reply-to-critics/. 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/.

[29] See on this e.g. a pamphlet by Michael Pröbsting: Putin’s Poodles (Apologies to All Dogs). The pro-Russian Stalinist parties and their arguments in the current NATO-Russia Conflict, 9 February 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/nato-russia-conflict-stalinism-as-putin-s-poodles/; by the same author: Russia: So-Called “Communists” against LGBT+. The KPRF deputies in the State Duma unanimously support a bill banning “LGBT propaganda”, 31 October 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/oppressed/russian-kprf-against-lgbt/

[30] See on this e.g. two pamphlets by Michael Pröbsting: Putin’s Poodles (Apologies to All Dogs). The pro-Russian Stalinist parties and their arguments in the current NATO-Russia Conflict, 9 February 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/nato-russia-conflict-stalinism-as-putin-s-poodles/; Servants of Two Masters. Stalinism and the New Cold War between Imperialist Great Powers in East and West, 10 July 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/servants-of-two-masters-stalinism-and-new-cold-war/

[31] See the above-mentioned pamphlet by Michael Pröbsting: Servants of Two Masters

[32] Ivan Timofeev: The Chinese View of the World: Is a Non-Zero-Sum Game Possible? 16 January 2023, https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/the-chinese-view-of-the-world-is-a-non-zero-sum/

[33] Timur Fomenko: How the year 2022 ended the American unipolar era, Russia Today, 31 December 2022, https://www.rt.com/news/569087-2022-cold-war-us/

[34] See e.g. the above-mentioned essay by Michael Pröbsting: Russia: An Imperialist Power or a “Non-Hegemonic Empire in Gestation”?

[35] See on this e.g. our above-mentioned essay by Michael Pröbsting: The Struggle of Revolutionaries in Imperialist Heartlands against Wars of their “Own” Ruling Class.

[36] Quoted in: Ronald S. Cunsolo: Enrico Corradini and Italian Nationalism 1896-1923, New York University, June 1962, p. 97

[37] Quoted in: Frank Vollmer: Faschistische Kultur. Revolution und Gewalt im totalitären Regime: Ein Fallbeispiel von zwei Peripherien, in: PERIPHERIE Nr. 106, 26. Jg. 2006, Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot, Münster, p. 491 (our translation)

[38] Quoted in: Monica Fioravanzo: Die Europakonzeptionen von Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus (1939–1943), in: Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Jahrgang 58 (2010), No. 4, p. 512 (our translation)

[39] Germaine A. Hoston: Marxism and the Crisis of Development in Prewar Japan, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1986, pp. 80-81

[40] See on this also the above-mentioned book by Michael Pröbsting: Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry, pp. 54-56.

[41] Andrew C. Kuchins: China’s Policy toward Russia and Europe: The Eurasian Hookup, in: David B. H. Denoon (Ed.): China’s Grand Strategy. A Roadmap to Global Power? New York University Press, New York 2021, p. 207

[42] See chapter 9 “’Socialism in One Country’: The Historical Roots of the Stalinist Concept of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’” in the above-mentioned pamphlet by Michael Pröbsting: Servants of Two Masters. Stalinism and the New Cold War between Imperialist Great Powers in East and West.

“Orden Mundial Multipolar” = Multiimperialismo

Una crítica marxista a un concepto propugnado por Putin, Xi, el estalinismo y la “Internacional Progresista” (Lula, Sanders, Varoufakis)

Un ensayo (con 2 tablas) de Michael Pröbsting, secretario internacional de la Corriente Comunista Revolucionaria Internacional (CCRI), 24 de febrero de 2023, www.thecommunists.net

 

Contenido

 

Introducción

“Orden multipolar”: un elemento clave de la doctrina de política exterior de Putin y Xi

Estalinismo internacional: “¡Viva la solidaridad obrera y el mundo multipolar!

Internacional Progresista: ¿“Multipolaridad” como paso para superar el “capitalismo monopolista”?

¿Son China y Rusia potencias “progresistas”?

No puede haber coexistencia pacífica entre grandes potencias

Progenitores históricos: Alemania, Italia y Japón en busca de “su lugar bajo el sol

Marxismo versus multiimperialismo

 

* * * * *

 


Introducción

 

Como estamos viviendo un período de decadencia capitalista, es inevitable que la rivalidad interimperialista entre las Grandes Potencias se acelere. Cuando el pastel se hace más pequeño, los ladrones luchan por su parte del botín con creciente determinación contra sus rivales.

Por lo tanto, hemos visto en los últimos años una aceleración dramática de las tensiones entre las viejas potencias imperialistas (EE.UU., Europa Occidental y Japón) y sus rivales en ascenso, China y Rusia. [1] El resultado ha sido, por un lado, la guerra comercial entre EEUU y China, [2] las sanciones occidentales contra Rusia [3] así como el armamento de todas las Grandes Potencias. [4] Por otro lado, hemos visto varias guerras imperialistas importantes de grandes potencias contra países semicoloniales en las últimas dos décadas, sobre todo las invasiones estadounidenses en Afganistán [5] e Irak [6], así como la invasión rusa de Ucrania hace un año. [7]

En este punto, no repetiremos el análisis de la CCRI sobre la evolución actual de la rivalidad de las Grandes Potencias, la Guerra de Ucrania o el ascenso de China y Rusia como potencias imperialistas. Más bien nos centraremos en un concepto ideológico clave que ha ganado prominencia entre muchos partidos autoproclamados de izquierda en el contexto de la acelerada rivalidad entre las grandes potencias.

Estamos hablando de la teoría de reemplazar el antiguo orden mundial “unipolar” –que había estado dominado por los EE. UU. y sus aliados– por un nuevo sistema global que se denomina “orden multipolar”. Este concepto ha sido promovido por Putin, por el régimen chino, por numerosos partidos estalinistas, así como por la “Internacional Progresista” reformista burguesa cuyos representantes más destacados son el presidente Lula de Brasil, el senador estadounidense Bernie Sanders y Yanis Varoufakis, miembro de la Parlamento griego y ex ministro de Finanzas.

 

“Orden multipolar”: un elemento clave de la doctrina de política exterior de Putin y Xi

 

Desde hace algún tiempo, el concepto de “orden multipolar” ha sido un elemento clave de la doctrina de política exterior de Rusia y China. Así lo afirmó oficialmente en una declaración conjunta emitida por Putin y Xi en su célebre reunión de principios de febrero de 2022 y en la que llamaron a un nuevo orden mundial caracterizado por la “auténtica multipolaridad” y “la democratización de las relaciones internacionales”. [8]

Putin ha defendido repetidamente esta idea en varios discursos. En su reciente discurso de Año Nuevo, afirmó que su invasión de Ucrania serviría para construir “un orden mundial multipolar justo”. “Nuestra lucha por nuestro país, por nuestros intereses y por nuestro futuro sin duda sirve como un ejemplo inspirador para otros estados en su búsqueda de un orden mundial multipolar justo.[9]

Y en un discurso programático realizado en octubre de 2022 en el Club de Discusión de Valdai, un importante grupo de expertos ruso cercano al Kremlin, Putin afirmó: “Estoy convencido de que la democracia real en un mundo multipolar se trata principalmente de la capacidad de cualquier nación, (… ) cualquier sociedad o civilización a seguir su propio camino y organizar su propio sistema sociopolítico.” [10]

En una reunión reciente del viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores de China, Ma Zhaoxu, y el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Rusia, Sergey Lavrov, también confirmaron su apoyo a tal concepto. “Los funcionarios reafirmaron su intención de defender de manera confiable la soberanía, la seguridad y los intereses de desarrollo de los dos países, y construir juntos un orden mundial multipolar más justo y democrático”, dijo el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Rusia. [11]

Le Yucheng, Viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores de China en ese momento, declaró en un discurso en el Foro de Relaciones Internacionales Contemporáneas de los Institutos de China 2019 celebrado en Beijing, que China “cree en un mundo multipolar y apoya el multilateralismo y el libre comercio.” [12]

Asimismo, Global Times, el portavoz en inglés del régimen de Beijing, declaró en un artículo publicado recientemente en su sitio web: “Pero el mundo ha cambiado y un mundo multipolar se ha convertido en una realidad ineludible”. [13]

De hecho, como ha demostrado Rush Doshi, un experto académico en China que actualmente se desempeña como director senior para China y Taiwán en el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional de la Administración Biden, en un libro publicado recientemente, el concepto de un “orden mundial multipolar” ha jugado un papel importante para la doctrina de política exterior de China desde hace varios años. [14] Jiang Zemin, el entonces secretario general del PCCh en ese momento, ya se refirió en la Conferencia de Embajadores de 1997 a la “multipolaridad mundial”. [15]

 

Estalinismo internacional: “¡Viva la solidaridad obrera y el mundo multipolar!”

 

Muchos partidos estalinistas comparten el objetivo de Putin y Xi de construir un “orden mundial multipolar”. Para ellos el principal enemigo es el “orden unipolar” dominado por el imperialismo estadounidense. En agosto de 2022, el KPRF, el partido “comunista” más grande de Rusia dirigido por Gennady Zyuganov, publicó una declaración con el título programático: “¡Abajo el imperialismo estadounidense! ¡Viva la solidaridad obrera y un mundo multipolar![16]

Esta declaración explicó apropiadamente lo que estos estalinistas quieren decir con un “mundo multipolar” como este, ya que expresó el “apoyo de la desmilitarización y desnazificación de Ucrania” del partido, así como su “protesta contra la política agresiva seguida por los Estados Unidos y sus satélites contra Rusia”. En otras palabras, la declaración de KPRF muestra que la propagación de la idea de un “mundo multipolar” está indisolublemente ligada al apoyo a la invasión de Ucrania por parte de Putin, así como a la defensa socialimperialista de la “patria” rusa contra Estados Unidos y sus aliados.

Como señalamos en otro lugar, tal política de apoyo socialimperialista a Rusia y su guerra contra el pueblo ucraniano no se limita a la KPRF de Zyuganov. [17] Declaración firmada por 34 Partidos Comunistas que participaron en el XXII Encuentro Internacional de Partidos Comunistas y Obreros en La Habana en octubre de 2022, expresó las mismas ideas. [18]

Asimismo, otra declaración internacional que había sido adoptada en junio de 2021 por Partidos Comunistas de 26 países diferentes muestra que estos estalinistas consideran la rivalidad de las Grandes Potencias como un conflicto entre, por un lado, las potencias imperialistas dirigidas por Washington y, por otro lado, la China “socialista” y su aliada Rusia, que desafían el “orden mundial neoliberal y unipolar” dominado por Estados Unidos. “Estados Unidos, el líder de facto de la alianza de la OTAN, ha dejado en claro que sus intereses radican en iniciar una “nueva Guerra Fría” centrada en la propaganda antichina y anticomunista. Esta es una amenaza para todos los trabajadores del mundo. Desde el infame “Pivote Asiático” del presidente Barack Obama, ha quedado claro que la élite capitalista estadounidense ha visto los éxitos y el poder crecientes de la República Popular China como una amenaza a su orden mundial unipolar y neoliberal. Durante la administración de Donald Trump, el gobierno de EE. UU. se volvió cada vez más agresivo en sus políticas contra China y antisocialistas y muchos comenzaron a hablar de una “nueva Guerra Fría”. (…) ¿Por qué el hecho de que el país más grande del mundo salga de la pobreza constituye una amenaza para la seguridad de las potencias de la OTAN? La respuesta es que no. Sin embargo, constituye una amenaza para la hegemonía estadounidense y las ganancias capitalistas. Tanto China como su aliado estratégico Rusia, se encuentran rodeadas 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 más y 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. fuerzas fascistas 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. fuerzas fascistas 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.” [19]

No deja de ser interesante que algunos de los partidos que firmaron esta declaración son actualmente parte de gobiernos capitalistas (por ejemplo, Brasil, España y Sudáfrica) o lo estaban hace unos años (Francia).

En resumen, mientras que la justificación exacta difiere de alguna manera de la de Putin y sus ideólogos, el objetivo estratégico de los estalinistas es muy similar: la sustitución del “orden mundial unipolar” liderado por Estados Unidos por un “orden mundial multipolar”, es decir, un fortalecimiento del papel global de las potencias imperialistas orientales, China y Rusia.

 

Internacional Progresista: ¿“Multipolaridad” como paso para superar el “capitalismo monopolista”?

 

Una estrategia similar ha sido promovida por la “Internacional Progresista”. Esta es una asociación burguesa de varios partidos reformistas y populistas que incluye una serie de partidos (ex)gubernamentales, así como políticos Entre ellos se encuentran el senador estadounidense Bernie Sanders, el PT de Lula (Brasil), Yanis Varoufakis y su DiEM25 (Grecia), el expresidente Rafael Correa (Ecuador), el exlíder del Partido Laborista Jeremy Corbyn (Gran Bretaña), así como destacados políticos de “La France insoumise” de Melanchon , el partido de Evo Morales, el partido kirchnerista gobernante en Argentina, etc. [20]

Paweł Wargan, el "coordinador de la secretaría de la Internacional Progresista", ha publicado recientemente un artículo programático sustancial en Monthly Review, una destacada revista estadounidense con inclinaciones estalinófilas. En este ensayo, Wargan afirma que las perspectivas defendidas por la Internacional Comunista en la época de Lenin y Trotsky, así como por otros opositores al colonialismo, finalmente se están materializando.

Por primera vez en la larga historia del capitalismo, el centro de gravedad económico global se está desplazando decisivamente hacia el este. La balanza comercial ahora favorece a China, y las naciones del Tercer Mundo se preparan para el fin de la era de la hegemonía estadounidense, un período de desequilibrios forzados en el sistema capitalista mundial que aceleró el subdesarrollo de las sociedades poscoloniales. Los movimientos tectónicos desatados por este proceso están enviando temblores por todo el globo. El llamado “mundo occidental”, formado durante siglos por el dominio del capital, es impotente ante las catástrofes del hambre, la pobreza y el cambio climático. Impedidos de canalizar su poder económico hacia la mejora de la sociedad, un proceso que desafiaría la preeminencia de la propiedad privada, las antiguas potencias coloniales están desviando recursos hacia la protección de la riqueza privada. El fascismo asoma la cabeza y se pintan nuevos puntos de mira sobre las naciones que buscan embarcarse en el camino del desarrollo soberano. De esta manera, el impulso contrarrevolucionario de la vieja Guerra Fría se traslada a un nuevo siglo, una vez más lleno de promesas y terror en igual medida.” [21]

Bajo el liderazgo de la “China socialista” que “Rusia ahora eleva regularmente como un modelo a ser emulado”, una amplia alianza global desafiaría el orden imperialista. “En esta Nueva Guerra Fría, como en las guerras coloniales del siglo pasado, las aspiraciones de muchos de construir vidas dignas trascienden las líneas divisorias ideológicas. Hoy, los lazos entre los países del Tercer Mundo se endurecen frente a la amenaza imperialista. Xi Jinping de China y Narendra Modi de India, mundos distintos en sus proyectos y convicciones políticas, están rechazando la 'mentalidad de Guerra Fría'. También lo son los estados sudamericanos.

Partiendo de tal punto de vista, no sorprende que Wargan considere el concepto de “multipolaridad” como un instrumento para luchar contra el imperialismo.

La resistencia decidida al canto de sirena de la Nueva Guerra Fría subraya la urgencia de la multipolaridad. Es un antídoto contra los desequilibrios forzados en el capitalismo mundial que han caracterizado gran parte de los últimos quinientos años y que el momento unipolar había asegurado. Si la humanidad quiere tener una oportunidad de resolver las crisis de civilización de nuestro tiempo, desde la pandemia hasta la pobreza, desde la guerra hasta la catástrofe climática, debe construir una política exterior basada en el desarrollo soberano y la cooperación contra el impulso subordinador del imperialismo.”

¡Aún más, el coordinador de la “Internacional Progresista” afirma que tal nuevo orden global con China y Rusia en una posición fuerte ayudaría a derribar el capitalismo monopolista! “La multipolaridad es un paso, en otras palabras, hacia la articulación de proyectos políticos alternativos fuera de la esfera del impulso acumulativo del capitalismo monopolista. Y por esa razón, es la amenaza más profunda que el Occidente colectivo jamás haya enfrentado.”

Como podemos ver, la “Internacional Progresista” ha adoptado no solo un concepto estratégico clave del imperialismo chino y ruso, ¡sino que incluso incorpora categorías putinistas (como el “Occidente colectivo”)!

 

¿Son China y Rusia potencias “progresistas”?

 

Como hemos mostrado en los capítulos anteriores, la idea de un “orden mundial multipolar” juega un papel clave tanto en la doctrina de política exterior de Rusia y China como en los conceptos ideológicos de las fuerzas estalinistas y reformistas-populistas. La CCRI siempre ha insistido en que los auténticos socialistas no tienen nada que ver con la idea de un “orden mundial multipolar”. De hecho, este es un concepto que sirve a los intereses del imperialismo ruso y chino.

En contraste con el mito estalinista de que China sería un “país socialista”, el “Reino Medio” se ha convertido en una Gran Potencia imperialista hace más de una década. Como elaboramos con mucho detalle en nuestros trabajos, el capitalismo fue restaurado a principios de 1990 mientras el partido estalinista permanecía en el poder (en contraste con la URSS en 1991). Desde entonces, ha evolucionado una gran clase de capitalistas y corporaciones líderes mundiales. Como muestran las tablas 1 y 2, China ya tiene una mayor cantidad de multimillonarios y monopolios que EE. UU.

 

Tabla 1. Los 10 principales países con el ranking de empresas Fortune Global 500 (2020) [22]

Clasificación       País                                   Empresas             Participación (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%

 

Tabla 2. China y EE. UU. encabezan la Hurun Global Rich List 2021 [23]

                            2021                    Porcentaje de multimillonarios globales "conocidos" 2021

China                  1058                    32,8%

EE.UU.               696                      21,6%

 

El régimen “socialista” de China es de hecho una dictadura estalinista-capitalista. Esto es evidente, por citar solo algunos ejemplos, por la brutal política Cero-COVID que provocó protestas masivas sin precedentes hace unos meses, [24] el brutal aplastamiento del movimiento democrático en Hong Kong en 2019-2020 [25] o la horrible opresión nacional de los uigures. [26] No, no hay nada "socialista" en el régimen de China. Como mostramos en varios trabajos, más bien se ha convertido en una potencia imperialista que desafía a la hegemonía estadounidense desde hace mucho tiempo. [27]

Asimismo, no hay nada de “progresista” o “antiimperialista” en la Rusia de Putin. Como demostramos en varios folletos, Rusia también se ha convertido en una potencia imperialista. [28] Aunque tiene una economía menos fuerte en comparación con China, tiene, aparte de los EE. UU., el arsenal nuclear más grande del mundo. En términos de ideología, una diferencia clave entre los dos regímenes es que mientras Beijing afirma retóricamente construir un sistema “socialista”, Putin no pretende tales tonterías. Admira abiertamente a los ideólogos monárquicos de derecha como Ivan Ilyin y promueve una visión del mundo extremadamente conservadora dominada por el chovinismo gran ruso, así como por el antifeminismo rabioso y las ideas anti-LGBT+. [29]

Los marxistas tienen que tener muy claro el significado del concepto de “orden mundial multipolar”. Significa la sustitución de un orden mundial liderado por Estados Unidos por uno en el que varias potencias desempeñen un papel de liderazgo. ¿Qué significa esto concretamente? Significa que hay varias Grandes Potencias que inevitablemente rivalizan entre sí por la dominación. De hecho, este no es un concepto nuevo, ya que el mundo experimentó períodos de intensa rivalidad entre las grandes potencias en la primera mitad del siglo XX. Como es bien sabido, esta rivalidad resultó en dos devastadoras guerras mundiales en 1914-18 y 1939-45.

 

No puede haber coexistencia pacífica entre grandes potencias

 

¡La idea misma del estalinismo de que varias grandes potencias puedan coexistir pacíficamente es completamente absurda! ¡Nunca existió una coexistencia tan pacífica entre imperios en toda la historia de las sociedades de clases de miles de años! Tarde o temprano, el impulso de la clase dominante por expandir su esfera de influencia y aumentar su producto excedente resultó en conflictos y guerras con sus rivales. [30] ¿Por qué debería ser diferente en el siglo XXI, más aún si todas las grandes potencias poseen grandes arsenales de armas modernas?

De hecho, es como señalamos en uno de nuestros folletos sobre este tema: “En resumen, ¡un orden mundial en el que EE. UU. ya no es la hegemonía absoluta sino solo una de varias Grandes Potencias definitivamente no es más pacífica! ¡Es sólo la etapa de la rivalidad abierta entre las Grandes Potencias, la etapa intermedia entre el unilateralismo y la Tercera Guerra Mundial![31]

De hecho, los más inteligentes entre los ideólogos putinistas son plenamente conscientes del hecho de que un “orden mundial multipolar” no es “pacífico”, sino que significa una aceleración de la rivalidad entre las grandes potencias, aumentando las tensiones militares y la amenaza de grandes guerras. Tal escribió Ivan Timofeev, un destacado intelectual putinista que se desempeña como Director de Programas del Club de Discusión de Valdai, así como Director de Programas del Consejo Ruso de Asuntos Internacionales (el grupo de expertos oficial del Kremlin): “El mundo se está moviendo objetivamente hacia lo que la doctrina de la política exterior rusa llama un mundo multipolar o un mundo sin hegemonía. Pero dadas las tendencias actuales, lo más probable es que ese mundo siga siendo anárquico, con el realismo político como paradigma clave del pensamiento de política exterior.” [32]

Y Timur Fomenko, analista político ruso que escribe para el órgano central putinista Russia Today, reconoce que el “orden mundial multipolar” se parece cada vez más al mundo anterior a 1914 o 1939. “A medida que EE. UU. trata de recuperar su hegemonía, otros países se ven obligados a aumentar sus capacidades nacionales y su autonomía estratégica para evitar ser dominados. Esto ha creado nuevas carreras armamentísticas, nuevas carreras tecnológicas y también la expansión de bloques alternativos a Occidente, como los BRICS, la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái y más. Le guste o no a Estados Unidos, esta es la realidad de la multipolaridad que trató de prevenir en primer lugar. El mundo ahora se parece cada vez más a lo que era antes de 1914, o peor aún, antes de 1939, donde no solo hay dos grandes potencias rivales, sino una plétora de naciones que luchan por tener influencia. Mientras que EE. UU. se esfuerza por mantener su hegemonía, se enfrenta a los rivales de China y Rusia, pero también hay otras potencias emergentes, incluyendo India e Indonesia”. [33]

No puede ser de otra manera. No hay capitalismo sin competencia entre diferentes capitalistas. Y, del mismo modo, no hay capitalismo sin rivalidad entre estados. Como explicamos en otra parte, existió un cierto período excepcional entre 1948-91 en el que dos factores limitaron la rivalidad interimperialista:

a) la enemistad conjunta de las potencias imperialistas contra la URSS y otros estados estalinistas;

b) la hegemonía absoluta de EE.UU. dentro del campo imperialista como resultado de la derrota de Alemania y Japón en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. [34]

Sin embargo, incluso este período también fue particularmente pacífico, sino más bien uno que se ha llamado "Guerra Fría" y que vio una serie de guerras regionales y locales.

El imperialismo es un sistema capitalista global dominado económicamente por monopolios y políticamente por grandes potencias. Son inevitables en la competencia feroz y la rivalidad entre sí y tratan de prevalecer contra sus rivales. Esto continuará dominando la política mundial mientras exista el capitalismo, es decir, hasta que el sistema de propiedad privada de los medios de producción haya sido reemplazado globalmente por un orden socialista basado en la democracia obrera directa y una economía planificada nacionalizada.

 

Progenitores históricos: Alemania, Italia y Japón en busca de “su lugar bajo el sol

 

Los teóricos estalinistas afirman que sería progresista acabar con la hegemonía estadounidense. Por supuesto, todos los socialistas desprecian el imperialismo estadounidense y la CCRI, como otros marxistas auténticos, tiene un largo historial de apoyo a las luchas de liberación contra la potencia hegemónica estadounidense y sus aliados. [35] Sin embargo, ¡no hay nada progresista en reemplazar la dominación de una Gran Potencia por una de varias Grandes Potencias! ¿Por qué preferimos un mundo gobernado por varios ladrones a un mundo gobernado solo por uno? Los socialistas se oponen a todos los ladrones: ni el uno ni el otro son un “mal menor” para la clase obrera internacional y los pueblos oprimidos.

El desafío de Rusia y China a la hegemonía estadounidense no está impulsado por ningún factor progresista, sino más bien por el deseo imperialista de estos ladrones recién llegados de conseguir el “lugar que les corresponde” en la gran mesa de los ladrones globales. No hay nada nuevo en tal desarrollo. Los círculos dirigentes en Alemania a fines del siglo XIX y principios del XX discutieron extensamente la deplorable situación de que su estado, en contraste con Gran Bretaña y Francia, apenas poseía colonias. Bernhard von Bülow, canciller de Alemania de 1900 a 1909, dijo una vez en un famoso discurso parlamentario que "exigimos nuestro lugar bajo el sol.” – lo que significaba que Alemania debía tener una parte “justa” de colonias. Como es bien sabido, el impulso de Alemania para convertirse en una potencia global resultó en un antagonismo intrínseco con el Imperio Británico y condujo a la Primera Guerra Mundial y, más tarde, a la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Del mismo modo, los chovinistas italianos como Enrico Corradini y Gabriele D'Annunzio afirmaron a principios del siglo XX que su país era una "nación proletaria" que salió mal en la política de las grandes potencias. “Hay que partir del reconocimiento del principio: hay naciones proletarias como hay clases proletarias; naciones, es decir, cuyas condiciones de vida están subordinadas desventajosamente a las de otras naciones, análogas a las de las clases... Italia es una nación moral y materialmente proletaria.” [36]

Esta idea fue recogida más tarde por Mussolini y sus fascistas (Corradini se había unido al partido fascista y se convirtió en senador). Al justificar su guerra contra Etiopía, el periódico oficial fascista Acciaio afirmó en 1936 que Italia simplemente deseaba “su lugar bajo el sol”. [37]

Y en 1940, un “Dizionario di politica” (Diccionario político) oficial publicado por el régimen afirmaba que sólo “naciones jóvenes y fuertes, que reclaman su lugar bajo el sol” podrían lograr establecer “un nuevo y diferente equilibrio de poder entre las naciones.[38]

En Japón, otra potencia imperialista de reciente aparición, surgieron teorías similares. En la década de 1920, el ex marxista Takahashi Kamekichi desarrolló la teoría de que Japón era un “pequeño imperialismo”. Afirmó que Japón “está en la posición de un país sujeto al imperialismo. (…) En consecuencia, el papel de clase internacional [de Japón], en lugar de coincidir con el de países imperialistas como Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos, coincide mucho más con el de China, India y otros países sujetos al imperialismo.” [39] Por lo tanto, uno tenía que apoyar su deseo de convertirse en un Gran Potencia. [40]

Por supuesto, la historia nos ha enseñado cómo suele terminar ese deseo de poderes tardíos. Cuando las potencias emergentes se fortalecen y desafían a las potencias hegemónicas establecidas, inevitablemente provoca tensiones y conflictos y, en última instancia, esto desemboca en guerras. Es lógico que una potencia hegemónica haga todo lo posible para mantener su estatus dominante. El Imperio Romano lo hizo hace 2.000 años, al igual que el Imperio Medio y el Imperio Bizantino y, mucho más recientemente, el Imperio Británico en los siglos XIX y XX y los EE.UU. en las últimas décadas. Asimismo, es lógico que los imperios emergentes intenten desafiar a la potencia hegemónica. ¡Sin embargo, no es lógico sino rotundamente absurdo que haya gente que imagine que tal proceso podría resultar en un período pacífico!

Al final, mientras exista el capitalismo, una potencia imperialista (o un grupo de potencias imperialistas) intentará subyugar a sus rivales. O Estados Unidos logrará mantener su estatus hegemónico o China, su rival más serio, derribará el antiguo orden dominado por Occidente. Por lo tanto, un “orden mundial multipolar” no puede ser un período estable a largo plazo, sino solo un fenómeno de transición. Andrew C. Kuchins, un académico estadounidense que trabaja para varios grupos de expertos imperialistas, señaló apropiadamente: “China seguirá hablando de boquilla de la ideología de la multipolaridad hasta que su dominio unilateral sea claro para todos.” [41]

 

Marxismo versus multiimperialismo

 

En resumen, el llamado putinista-estalinista a un “orden mundial multipolar” no es más que una versión repetida de la vieja demanda imperialista de las potencias emergentes de tener su “lugar bajo el sol”. Lo asombroso no es que los ideólogos imperialistas del régimen de Putin -que nunca ocultaron su admiración por el autoritario imperio zarista- retomen esquemas ideológicos tan antiguos. ¡Es bastante sorprendente el entusiasmo con el que los partidos estalinistas y reformistas apoyan estas teorías archirreaccionarias!

Como siempre ha enfatizado la CCRI, la defensa del concepto de un “orden mundial multipolar” significa apoyo político e ideológico al imperialismo chino y ruso y su deseo de acabar con la hegemonía del imperialismo estadounidense. Los partidos estalinistas y reformistas tienen una larga tradición de apoyar a una facción de la burguesía contra otra (la llamada “estrategia del frente popular”). Asimismo, se pusieron del lado de las guerras interimperialistas con un bando contra el otro: en la Primera Guerra Mundial por lo general apoyaron a su propia clase dominante; En las décadas de 1930 y 1940, los socialdemócratas apoyaron a los imperialistas occidentales contra Alemania desde 1933 en adelante, mientras que los estalinistas lo hicieron en 1935-39 y en 1941-1945 (mientras prestaban apoyo tácito a Alemania en el período del Pacto Hitler-Stalin).

Como señalamos en otro lugar, la explicación del apoyo de los estalinistas a tal concepto se encuentra, en el campo de la teoría, en su viejo dogma del “socialismo en un solo país”. Según esta teoría, sería posible establecer un sistema global pacífico a pesar de la existencia continua de potencias imperialistas. [42]

Por lo tanto, la defensa de un “orden mundial multipolar” refleja una política totalmente socialimperialista de apoyo al imperialismo ruso y chino. Algunos estalinistas en los países occidentales podrían afirmar que son "antiimperialistas" ya que se oponen a su clase dominante. En efecto, tales partidos son tan “antiimperialistas” como lo fueron el socialdemócrata belga Hendrik de Man o el socialista francés Ludovic-Oscar Frossard, quienes “traicionaron” a su patria y colaboraron con las autoridades de ocupación alemanas en 1940-45. Lenin y Trotsky llamaron a tales fuerzas “socialimperialistas invertidos”, es decir, partidos que no apoyan a su propia burguesía imperialista sino a otra, “extranjera”. ¡Tales socialimperialistas invertidos no son ni mejores ni peores que los socialimperialistas ordinarios!

Sin embargo, no es suficiente señalar el apoyo de tales estalinistas, reformistas y populistas al imperialismo chino y ruso. También es importante reconocer que, en muchos países capitalistas, incluidos los estados occidentales imperialistas, existen secciones más pequeñas o más grandes de la burguesía monopolista que tienen un interés material en mantener buenas relaciones con China y Rusia. Como señalamos en nuestro folleto “Siervos de dos amos”, en Brasil, Argentina, Venezuela, India, muchos países africanos e incluso en Europa occidental, varios capitalistas tienen amplias operaciones comerciales con China y Rusia. Por lo tanto, los socialimperialistas proorientales representan, objetivamente, también los intereses de estos sectores de la burguesía interna.

En conclusión, está claro que un “orden mundial multipolar” no puede significar ni significa ningún sistema global pacífico o progresista; más bien significa, y solo puede significar, multiimperialismo, es decir, un mundo dominado por varias grandes potencias rivales. ¡Tal concepto no contiene ni una pulgada de progresividad!

¡Los marxistas se opusieron al orden mundial imperialista “unipolar” no porque fuera “unipolar” sino porque era imperialista! No elegimos entre un orden imperialista “unipolar” o “multipolar”, ¡nos oponemos a ambos por igual! Tampoco, por poner una analogía, ¡tenemos preferencia entre Apple o Microsoft o entre Facebook, Weibo o VK! Todos los imperialistas y todos los capitalistas “son peores”, como dice el refrán.

¡Para la CCRI y todos los socialistas auténticos, la alternativa al orden mundial imperialista “unipolar” no es la “multipolaridad” sino la lucha de clases internacional contra todas las Grandes Potencias para reemplazar cualquier forma del sistema imperialista por el socialismo internacional!



[1] La CCRI se ha ocupado en numerosas ocasiones de la rivalidad interimperialista de las Grandes Potencias. Véase, por ejemplo, Perspectivas mundiales 2021-22: Entrando en una situación global prerrevolucionaria, 22 de agosto de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-perspectives-2021-22/#anker_1 ; véase también nuestro libro de Michael Pröbsting: LIBRO: Anti-imperialismo en la Era de la Rivalidad de las Grandes Potencias. Los factores detrás de la Rivalidad acelerada entre los E.U, China, Rusia, la U.E y Japón. Una crítica del análisis de la izquierda y una semblanza de la Perspectiva Marxista, RCIT Books, Vienna 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/home/espa%C3%B1ol/libro-anti-imperialismo-en-la-era-de-la-rivalidad-de-las-grandes-potencias/; Véanse también las siguientes obras del mismo autor: "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/; Siervos de dos amos. El estalinismo y la nueva guerra fría entre las grandes potencias imperialistas de Oriente y Occidente, 10 de julio de 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/servants-of-two-masters-stalinism-and-new-cold-war/#anker_9; para más trabajos sobre este tema, consulte estas subpáginas: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/ y https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/.

[2] Nuestra última declaración sobre la Guerra Fría entre Estados Unidos y China es: Sanciones de chips: otro paso hacia la guerra entre EE. UU. y China. ¡Ni Washington ni Pekín! ¡Derrotismo revolucionario contra todas las Grandes Potencias imperialistas!, 25 de octubre de 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/chip-sanctions-another-step-towards-war-between-u-s-and-china/#anker_1. Para obtener más documentos sobre la guerra comercial global, consulte la compilación de nuestros artículos en nuestro sitio web, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/collection-of-articles-on-the-global-trade-war/.

[3] Hemos publicado una serie de artículos sobre las sanciones occidentales contra Rusia. Nuestro último es de Michael Pröbsting: Less Than 9%. Many Western corporations continue to make business with Russia despite the official sanction policy, 11 February 2023, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/western-corporations-continue-to-make-business-with-russia/

[4] Ver en esto, p.: Amenazas de guerra nuclear entre grandes potencias. Sobre algunas consecuencias para la situación mundial y para la táctica socialista en la defensa de Ucrania, 5 de octubre de 2022, https://www.theco