Discussion

What is the Nature of Imperialism Today?

(During the past couple of years a debate has broken out over the nature of imperialism today. Since the precise nature of imperialism has a profound influence on both the prospects for revolution and the strategy and tactics of revolutionary struggles, Modern Communism considers this discussion to be of the utmost importance. We also are of the opinion that this discussion must be based on an examination of the actual situation, not pre-conceived ideas or dogmas.)

Over 90 years ago, V.I. Lenin analyzed the concrete developments which were taking place in the international capitalist system. His conclusions were presented in his famous book: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin's analysis has guided revolutionary thinking on the nature of imperialism and the prospects for revolution ever since.

Lenin's theories regarding inter-imperialist conflicts and the possibility for revolutionary outbreaks where the chain of imperialism was weakest were confirmed by the experiences of two world wars, as well as by the emergence of the national liberation struggles of Asia, Africa and Latin America during the post-Second World War period. However, the developments of the past several decades indicate a necessity to re-examine the nature of imperialism today. It is not enough to simply go on applying Lenin's analysis as if nothing has changed over the past century.

When Lenin was writing, the imperialist system consisted of a handful of big, imperialist powers - Britain, Germany, Russia, France, United States, Japan and Italy - as well as a few smaller imperialist countries such as Belgium. These countries had powerful, modern economies, as well as powerful military forces. They were exporters of finance capital to the rest of the world. Other countries were either outright colonies of the big powers or were economically and politically dependent on one or another big power. This general situation continued until well into the 1970s.

Today, the situation is much more complicated. In today's imperialist system, not only the big powers export capital. In fact, virtually every economy which can be characterized as being capitalist - big or small - has become an exporter of capital. Furthermore, during the past 10 to 15 years the big capitalist powers have become some of the biggest importers of capital, with the United States leading the pack. Despite this change in capital flows, the power relationships which characterized imperialism during Lenin's lifetime still exist. In other words, some aspects of imperialism have changed, while other aspects have remained the same, and it is crucial that we identify and understand the central characteristics of imperialism today.

Another feature of imperialism which changed in the post-Second World War period was that the underlying contradictions between the imperialist powers were subordinated to the contradiction between imperialism and socialism - the Cold War. For the first time, a united front of imperialism, under the leadership of U.S. imperialism, was created to protect the entire capitalist system from the dangers of revolution and socialism. Ultimately, this united front of imperialism was victorious and socialism was defeated, as were most of the national liberation struggles.

With the strategic defeat of socialism, the possibility emerged of a breakdown of the imperialist united front and the renewal of the old inter-imperialist contradictions and conflicts. However, whether that possibility will become a reality remains to be seen. At present, there appear to be two contradictory tendencies at work.

On the one hand, as a result of the Marshall Plan, as well as the increasing mobility of capital, there is a significant inter-penetration and inter-dependency of American, European and Japanese capital. The lines of national capital versus foreign capital have become blurred. In addition, European and Japanese capital has become dependent on the American economy, which has run a massive trade deficit for the past decade, essentially becoming the importer of last resort. Can an inter-imperialist rivalry of the old type emerge within such an inter-dependant relationship?

On the other hand, beginning in the early 1990s there were definite indications that European and Japanese capital were not content to let the Americans call all of the shots. France and Germany began to cautiously expand their sphere of economic, political and military independence beginning with the strengthening of the European Union and including plans for an independent European military force. All of these developments were resisted by the United States, but the Europeans made significant headway nonetheless. The dispute between the Europeans and the United States over the war with Iraq brought many of these issues to the fore and may have been a signal that a split is pending. At present the French and Germans have backed off to some extent and are busy making concessions to the U.S. in Iraq, but whether this marks a major retreat on the part of the Europeans or merely a temporary lull remains to be seen.

It is the view of Modern Communism that it is still too early to predict which way imperialism will develop in the upcoming period. Clearly, there will be significant differences in the strategy and tactics of revolution depending on whether a new round of inter-imperialist rivalries develops or some form of hyper-imperialism dominated by the United States emerges. Therefore, it is crucial for revolutionary and progressive peoples everywhere to seriously analyze and discuss the issue of which way imperialism is headed today.