Globalization or Imperialism?

Forum of the Communists, Italy

Contribution to the International Communist Seminar

"The World Socialist Revolution in the Conditions of Imperialist Globalization"

Brussels, 2-4 May 2001

The debate on the imperialism is crucial. It is not disgraceful to remark that many groups have removed this category from the debate and the political and theoretic elaboration of the left. There are many iconoclasts in the European left and some of them call themselves communist but we still think that Marxist and Leninist categories represent better the substance of imperialism and are still unexcelled. Imperialism - we wish to reiterate once more - is neither a particularly aggressive commercial policy nor the display of military instruments. Imperialism is a specific phase of capitalistic development and we think that the major capitalistic economies (including the European and the Italian ones) have reached this stage long time ago. During last years, the mythe of globalization seems to have put in the shade processes such as intercapitalisms competition or the international relations based on the Triad: "USA, Europe, Japan". The same mythical Trilateral Commission has encountered difficulties to provide a unified vision of a new reality which would undermine at the basis even a powerful institution, parallel to the one set up among the major capitalistic powers of the planet, established to face, through the trilateral concertation, the communist menace. "The unarrested affirmation of the globalization could cause at least one victim, the same tripolar logic that during the cold war showed USA, Western Europe and Japan both as economic competitors and as strong political allies". As underlined by an internal observer summarizing the discussion of the Paris meeting in March 1999. "Now that the cold war is over, everyone feels as having the hands free while the new actors now facing the economic and strategic scene unmatch the traditional scenarios of alliances, priorities and conveniences". The fetish of globalization now seems sufficient also to many "neo-marxists" to understand present world's new international relations and new power relations. Nevertheless, the globalization category is very imperfect and in a sense deviating. It would be more appropriate to talk about "global competition" because such is, according to us, the era we are living in. An age in which the economic and political competition among stronger economies and/or imperialist poles will accentuate more than settle.

1. Imperialism and the role of State

At Lenin's time - inspite of a well-completed world market - the national-states basis of the capitalism was still dominant. In the financial exchanges the mixed bank that had replaced the stock for the capitals finding was predominant and the financial capital was strictly related to the State (the monopolistic states capitalism). Nowadays, imperialism is not anymore organized on the basis of the national state but on the poles which are the result of a coordination among various economical, financial and monetary homogeneous states. It is extremely wrong to think that states do not have anymore a crucial function. The state has developed itself at regional level (Europe, for example) but maintains its role of political and economic support to the capitalistic accumulation both through the fiscal and budgetary policy and through the commercial and international policies towards the other areas and the other imperialistic poles. Last but not least, through the military tool which has shown itself at least twice in the last ten years of the end-century. Although IMF itself had pushed to stop the total liberalization of the capitals in the light of the financial international crisis of 1997 and 1998, the French State has had a relevant role in stopping the MIA at the OECD session, so have the States in the failure of WTO negotiations in Seattle. The function of the state in the imperialism depends primarily on the nature of the state: there are "disgregating" (strong) and "disgregated" (weak) states: Relevantly, Eric Hobswam underlined how: "one of the main issues of the XXI century is the interaction between the world where the state exists and the one where it does not exist". The process of states disgregation initiated by the stronger imperialistic poles (USA and Europe) against Eastern Europe but also against "decolonized" Africa or Asia, not being anymore an antisoviet bulwark (see Indonesia and, in perspective, Indian and China) confirms that the "interaction" is one of the main features of modern imperialism. This "disgregating and reaggregating" function around the main poles exercised by the strong states is now clear:

• The role of USA towards NAFTA area represents an egenomic function both with the other countries integrated in the block (Mexico, Canada) and with the area of influence of the block itself (new project for Free Trade area of America's).
• Japan does not have the same centralizing and disgregating role of USA. It does not have a capacity of comprehensive hegemony on the rest of Asia (though maintaining a very strong economic penetration) and it must compete with a raising strong state as China which has demonstrated to have a strategic role for the economic stability of Asia. Furthermore, it cannot be neglected the weight of a medium nuclear power as India.
• The European imperialistic pole, though following a more complex process, has increased its centralizing function around the French-German axis and its disgregating function towards Eastern Europe (from the Yugoslavian crisis to the USSR deflagration and the Cezch-Slovak secession). There is still a strong limit against this process: up to present the political centralization has been much slower than the economic one. UK is still more in tuning with USA than with EU. But such a delay is being recuperated in much shorter times. The continuous widening of EU towards East and South involving new states (and new markets) proceeds together with the organization of an efficient European army and a more dynamic management.

2. Competition or concertation among imperialist poles?

There is a strong competition between the raising European imperialistic pole and the two other poles of the triad (USA and Japan). According to the American economist Martin Feldstein (former Chief of the Economic Unit with Reagan and Bush) the introduction of Euro could even cause a war between USA and Europe. The former German Chancellor, H. Kohl, had also stated, one year earlier than Feldstein, that: "The European economic integration is a question of peace and war in the XXI century". The first competitive war between two imperialistic poles was the one between USA and Japan in the second half of the 90s which ended with the American victory and the application of the Admiral Perry's method: Japan was forced to open its home market to the american holdings (also to the European ones as was the case of Renault-Nissan). At the end of the XX century, the same result was obtained through the use of the financial crisis of the asian tigers; the overestimate of the yen against US dollar and the consequent fall of the Japanese exports representing the basis of the Japanese capitalism. Japanese ambitions expressed in the 90s by Akio Morita ("Japan that does not know how to say") or in the Miyazawa doctrine which would put Japan at the centre of the new security system in Asia, have been frustrated by a conflict that submitted Japan. According to a more strategic scenario, the tensions between Europe and USA on the exchange rate between Euro and US dollar (which will influence both the new balances on the financial markets and the trend of the relevant balances of trade), the failure of the negotiations of WTO in Seattle or the systematic use of geopolitical crisis in the Balkans (up to the war against Yugoslavia) are concrete examples of an evident competition. How should we explain the fusion among Aereospatiale (France), British Aerospace (UK), Dasa (Germany), Finmeccanica (Italy) to create a pole for military, aeronautic and aerospatial production to compete with American colossi in a strategic market on an economic, technological and geo-political plan? Or the fusion among major European enterprises of advanced electronics to establish a missiles pole autonomous from USA? And also, how to explain the impressive acceleration which lead to the establishment of the European army ? Malcolm Sylvers, a scrupolous marxist scientist of American imperialism, has remarked in a very interesting book that: " It can be thought that both the competitive nature of capitalism and the structure of states hinder the attainment of stable agreements among main powers. The conflictual scenario with possible strong increases of the international tension is not a direct alternative to coordination; there are elements of both tendencies, though the first one is more evident". Sylvers had already highlighted the impressive increase in the american military expenses, though denies any "isolationist" tendency of USA towards his European parterns. Together with competition there is also a "cross" cooperation between European and American transnationals. If we consider the telecomunications and information sector, we would find out a series of agreements whose capitals' nationality is difficult to ascertain. On the contrary, in the emerging sector of biotechnologies there is still a strong competition and a national basis as the capitals investments in this sector are high (therefore the states support is needed) and the american enterprises want to keep the world hegemony on the sector. It must also be underlined that competition has found its "mediation places" in the international organizations of the financial capital (IMF, OECD, WTO, BRI, G7 summits or the same UN). They have represented an opportunity to discuss and solve conflict without the need for a war as it has already happened twice in the XX century. Popular demonstrations have been important but behind the failure of Seattle or the "torpedoing" of Camdessus by IMF it is evident the increasing competition between EU and USA.

3. Globalization or new economic blocks?

Since the famous crisis of the 70s - a deep crisis that some people define as "mother" of the present crisis of capitals overproduction - the value of world trades of hand-manufactured goods has increased up to 350%; that of services up to 400% and that of financial transactions up to 800%. The increasing supremacy of the financial capital seems to confirm the feature of the imperialism historically described by Lenin. Two economic observers remarked that: "Never before in the last twenty years there has been such a big difference between the very fast increase of financial integration and that, good but much weaker, of the international market of goods and services." Globalization has mainly involved financial sector and that - increasing - of immaterial resources, while the real economy shows a conflicting trends towards globalization. Data from international institutes confirm, for example, that the world trade - i.e. the real exchange between goods and services - has increased above all within the regional economic blocks (EU, NAFTA, ASEAN) more than among the different areas of the world. Moreover, the great majority of economic exchanges addressed outside the blocks takes place among developed capitalistic poles and only in smaller amount, with developing countries. The exchanges grow but on a regional basis (% of exchanges within the blocks)

(Source : Alternatives Economic, December 1999) From an analysis of holdings' business, a data is evidenced which conflicts with the thesis of "globalization without frontiers". In fact, for the European holdings, the home market and the European one, are still the most favourite ones. It is, thus, clear the importance of having one currency and one open market - converted into an home market - as the European one. Out of first 32 European holdings, 26 have more than 50% of the invoiced outside of their country of origin and only 11 have more than 50% of their dependents abroad. According to a study by two english economists: Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, the reality that emerges is exactly that of the "European fortress" internationalized mainly internally and much less in the other areas. But this phenomenon is not only European : also for the American and Japanese holdings, the home market or at most that of the "area" (NAFTA and Latin America for the Americans, Asia for the Japanese ones) is largely majority. The domestic market of European holdings

Relations between the domestic market of the "European fortress" and the rest of the world

(source: "The globalization of economy", by Hirst and Thompson)

From the above data, it would emerge a tendency towards the strengthening of the regional economic block more than a tendency towards globalization. This is a factor not to be underestimated since it is at the basis of the big monopoles.

The fast fusion and concentration processes which have accelerated during last years, confirm that the new monopoles are sharing the markets and that free competition - propaedeutic to globalization - is only a screen to hide strong powers. The failure of Seattle can be indicative of such a tendency.

4. Is Europe now a "competitive imperialistic pole ?

In the last two years, we have faced ourselves with a tendency shared by many comrades, marxist scientists and significant political forces as PRC who are conditioned by a continuos underestimation of the imperialistic character of EU. This underestimation has emerged more strongly during the aggression against Yugoslavia, when the role of Europe was considered subordinate to the USA.

In reality, Europe of the XXI century is an imperialistic pole, ripe on the economic plan which is equipping itself with all cohercive instruments internal and international to materialize its ambitions and compete with USA.

A recent book by Romano Prodi ("An idea about Europe") is in line with the above picture. In the book the imperialistic ambitions are expressed quite clearly and it is also highlighted the character of overnational state that Europe will assume, starting from the renouncement to the national sovereignity in monetary policy, because "Europe represents a great power that can play a prominent role in the world exchequer".

The "Euro Zone" adds Prodi "represents a good starting point to make head against USA, the stronger competitor on the international market". Competition between world's most industrialized countries and the developing ones, is a first level to be considered.

A second level is the competition within OECD countries, mainly among EU, USA and Japan, the so called "Triad".

However, it should not be thought that imperialism is the "policy" of a specific ruling class. Competition between Europe and USA is both objective, demonstrated and essential for the capitalistic development in its main poles and Europe is undoubtedly one of them.

Present Power Relations

The above picture by European Commission is due to change again. According to an OECD study related to the value in dollars, in 1992, of the GDP of the three main imperialistic poles, in the next twenty years the situation will change and will become more "critical" for the imperialistic pole now predominant, that is to say USA.

World GDP in Twenty Years Time

(Source : OECD. The world in 2020, Paris 1997)

* In 1995 the GDP of these five countries, so called Big Five, was equal to 21% of World GDP.

Competition between Euro and Dollar : Bonds issued

(in billions of dollars)

(Source : Capital Data in "Sole 24 Ore"** of 27 September 1999)

* Up to 9 september 1999

* * Italian Economic Newspaper

During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, the more acute observers have paid much attention to the trend of exchange ratios between Euro and Dollar in connection with the war developments. Everytime there was a small opening in the negotiations the European currency gained over dollar, but as soon as USA closed that small opening and restarted with the bombing, the dollar recovered its supremacy. The aim, undeclared, was to weaken the start of Euro in order to favour the entrance or the maintenance of capitals in the USA and hinder their downflow towards "Euro area".

The introduction of Euro even if it has not yet caused a war, as menaced by Martin Feldstein, it is surely redrawing the map of the international economic and political power relations.

A little war has really taken place with different instruments and different scenarios : bombs on Yugoslavia and fluctuations in the world monetary markets.

But with the introduction of Euroland the map of the economic and financial power is due to change and above all, in the "areas of influence" of the different imperialistic poles.

While in Latin america the plan of "dollarization" comes forward again (which has caused the popular revolt in Ecuador), most of Eastern Europe (after the Mark) now considers the Euro as the currency of reference for convertibility purposes, for financial activities and also because of their integration/subordination to the European imperialistic pole.

"The emerging sovereign states of Central and Eastern Europe have welcomed the Euro with enthusiasm" says an economic newspaper "Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland have placed a substantial amount of registered bond in Euro. Many plan to adhere to the EU and therefore, Euro does not only have an economic value but it also represents a political objective of their future.

The above considerations on the economic structure and the role of the State in modern imperialism, take us to a whole political question. The neoliberal model has always faced with the historical limits and contradictions produced by the capitalistic accumulation.

In order to deal with the consequences of such a model, capitalism may need to restart the neo-keynesian economic policies which would raise the home demand, limit the damages of wild financialization, ensure political stability and dissolve the social conflict. But this is not to be considered as an inversion of tendency. In this sense, some comrades are deeply wrong when they think that socialdemocratic forces governing in Europe may reverse the present tendency. The socialdemocrats are totally exchangeable with neoliberals. Imperialism cannot be hindered and beaten by reformism but only by a strategy of radical change of social relations and mode of production.

This should exactly be the hard task of European communists due to struggle and act politically in the "heart" of the European imperialist pole.

Contribution to the International Communist Seminar

"The World Socialist Revolution in the Conditions of Imperialist Globalization"

Brussels, 2-4 May 2001