Globalisation, a concept with several meanings, even if it is a quite recent one, has its own history. In former times, the leaders of the Chinese empire, the roman emperors and Great Britain have pretended that their actions had a world character. The formation of a global social, economic and spiritual movement, grasping the entire world and the main aspects of the life of humanity and called western civilization comes from the 19th century. However, the second half of the past century led to specific corrections and to complements to this process.

Let's cite again a thought by J. Stalin, pronounced in the 40s: "The more one will go forward, the more success one will get, the more the remnants of the broken exploiting classes will be irritated, the quicker they will resort to sharper forms of the struggle." This citation doesn't only aim at expressing our deep regret for having forgotten the recommendations of this leader in recent times but also at using the marxist-leninist-stalinist dialectic approach and at finding some optimism in the evaluation of the current world situation, in order to examine the historic condemnation of the globalisation and the means to defeat it.

At the middle of the 19th century, it became obvious that all the important events, which determine the march of world history, are taking place in the countries of Europe and in the US. "The bourgeoisie, by means of the exploitation of the world market, as K. Marx and F. Engels declare in the Manifesto of the communist party, made cosmopolitan the production and the consumption in all the countries. By the rapid improvements of all the production and communication means, it drags along all the nations, even the most primitive, into civilization."

It is particularly relevant when one realizes that the biggest achievements in the development of technique, science, production forces, don't correspond to the aspiration of mankind to the realization of a social ideal, in harmony with all the domains of social life. The break in the social-economic situation between capitalists and waged workers, the aggravation of the class opposition in the advanced countries of capitalism, led to the creation by Marx and Engels of the communist ideology, scientifically founded. The party of Lenin realized this real break in the globalising capitalist way of development, which in fact has a world historic meaning, in October 1917.

The social-economic, organisational, ideological and strategic basis of the policy of imperialist globalisation (ultra-imperialism of the end of 21st century) is forming before our eyes. If one compares the important goals and values of the american-sionist globalisation project and the ones of the socialist (communist) project, the lack of historical perspectives of the former becomes obvious. The object of the imperialist globalisation is, by definition, the whole world. However, in the theory and above all in the practical actions, there is a sharp delimitation between the 'main' humanity and the 'auxiliary' and 'non-profitable' humanity, which corresponds, according to the 'civilized' UN employees, to two thirds of the world population. Huge possibilities of action on the world processes are concentrated in the hands of a very narrow group of peoples and organizations. "The multinationals, as the leader of the Cuban people Fidel Castro says, are organizations with large possibilities, a big richness and more power than all the governments together. The more they merge, the more they become master of the finances, of the production and of the economy of the world, run by the blind and uncontrolled laws of their systems. In this way they accelerate even more the arrival of the crisis."

The object of the socialist economic regulation on large scale is above all the process of social reproduction. A unique economic centre, the state, coordinates this process. On the international stage, a balance of gradual development is established in the following way: on one side, between the life environment of human society and the technical system it has created, on the other side, between the interests of development of the various countries and some international institutions, which solve the problems of coordination, for example in the domains of science, transportation and communication, of the spatial conquest, etc.

The depth of the conflict between the two possible trends appears even more clearly when one confront to each other the meaning and the goal of the economy. The goal of the globalising regulation is the unlimited enrichment of the subjects of the economy, that is to say of the multinationals, the control on the world economic space, the obtaining of profit under different forms, first as financial income. The global regulation leans on the forces of money and doesn't consider first the economic needs but the financial needs. This tendency, as shown by Marx, -"Instead of all the physical and spiritual feelings, one arrives to an alienation of all these feelings, to a ownership feeling" - has reached the limit where it makes the human beings completely primitive. All the values are converted into costs, the qualitative differences into quantitative ones, and the freedom of the person (for which so many 'global-liberal' are fighting) into a freedom of selling and buying everything and everybody.

The goal and the meaning of the process of the socialist regulation of the economy is the optimal development of all the sectors of the economy; the creation of a material basis for a diversified and, in particular, spiritual development of the society and of the human being; the aspiration  to the realization of the principle of social justice, not only in the repartition but also in all the domains of social and economic life; the warranty for every individual, every collectivity, every people, to have equal chances of realizing the spiritual needs of all the society and of every of its members.

At the end of the 20th century, with the development of the economic life (and not only economic) according to scenarios elaborated by the subjects of social regulation, the economic relations between the countries have taken the form of a financial spider-web. The giant speculative bubble, created by the US with the help of the IMF, reached a level of 300 trillions of dollars, for a world production reaching only 40 trillions. The main industrially developed states like Germany, France, Italy but also Japan and China, are more aware that their economic and political interests are now in direct contradictions with the dictates of the dollar, with the unavoidable complete break of the financial system, imposed to the world by the US.

Also, in the economic sphere of the countries of the 'second world', to which belong also the countries of the former USSR, one imposes instead of the real production of the consumption goods, the fantasy of the market, the monetary fetishism. So, in the domain of the conception of the world, all the space is filled with an unreal mass of ‘virtual’ information. In this technological century, the screen solves everything. In this mass, the rejection of the necessity of social progress and the conception of 'the end of history', the values of the bourgeois consumption and the reactionary anti-collectivism, the propaganda for moral licence and the right of the strongest, the contempt for work and the cult of richness, are dominating. These forms of the 'informational idealism' deprive the common citizens and the new generation of the feeling of danger, of psychological defence with respect to the system of alienation and exploitation. This system, with its current technical possibilities of constraint by forces, which are not interested in the development of society but in its deterioration, leads unavoidably to a catastrophe, nuclear or ecological, of the civilization or of the moral standards. In the countries that present themselves as a model to imitate, the criminality reaches record levels. The non-traditional (more exactly out of the tradition) groups of the population are increasing; homosexuals represent almost 15% of the population, the members of sects etc. Nevertheless from the point of view of the powerful financial systems, which control almost all the TV networks like in the US or in Israel, where one finds a lot of peoples with a double citizenship, such an evolution seems necessary for the accelerated formation of a new world order and of a world government.

Another aspect of globalisation, maybe the most important, although it is the least discussed. To broaden their zones of control, the globalisers don't generally choose, especially after the collapse of the USSR, economic or cultural cooperation but they use violence, with the help of the armed coalition of NATO. They insist on the lack of casualties on their side, on 'the obtaining of a maximum profit', that is to say on impunity, on the maximum reduction of their losses while killing a maximum of peoples by their victims. The Gulf war is significant: for each American killed, there was 1000 Iraqis killed. Of course, such a proportion can only be reached if one kills everybody and not only the peoples with a military uniform.

In Korea, in 1950-1953, the U.S. "Flying Fortresses" with no risk to themselves bombarded the peaceful population along with cultural monuments. In Vietnam, the United States made broad use of chemical weapons and napalm. They burned entire villages, causing the deaths of more than 500,000 inhabitants of the country. In these pitiless wars, the United States killed the civilian population above all. If the proportion of civilian victims reached 5% during the First World War, and 50% in the Second World War (this was already the "brilliant accomplishment" of Hitler’s fascist Germany), in the Korean War it was 84% and in Vietnam almost 90% of the victims were civilians. These U.S. wars aimed at destroying the entire population of the socialist countries. And they are prepared to carry out these wars against any people who are not in agreement with the policies practiced by the "civilizers."

Without doubt another factor played a role in the enormous number of civilian victims. It involves another method of struggle against the "non-profitable" and "surplus" population: the blockade. The population is deprived of products, of medicines—their "peaceful" disappearance is organized. This method was also applied in Russia, with the active collaboration of the regime that came to power 10 years ago. One cannot characterize as "natural" the decline in population, equal to almost six million people, in eight years. The mortality rate in the country is more than twice as great as the birth rate. Sixty percent of the population earns an income less than the minimum needed. The cult of violence, of promiscuity, of alcohol and of smoking dens is cultivated. The level of instruction and education has greatly dropped. The social basis is hit hard by alcoholism and substance abuse; AIDS and criminality are spreading.

The fundamental characteristics of the policy of globalization have quite fully appeared in the example of subversive activities against the Soviet Union. For the destruction of the USSR and the Soviet Socialist regime, the summit of the "elite globalising society" mobilized all its strengths and possibilities. The massive invasion of our country took place on three different paths: military-political, socio-economic and cultural-ideological.

The sarcastic suggestion of one of the Slavophile philosophers of the 19th Century to partisans of European civilization (that is, of globalization)— "weaken the common basis" [weaken the popular principle?] that resists this civilization – was addressed to his contemporaries. None the less it turned out to be prophetic: the road to weakening the common basis was adopted and followed, with the aggravating condition that it was the work of the dissident part of the Soviet intelligentsia (above all "creative") and of the traitors at the summit of the Party and the State. Under the slogan "return to the main steam of world civilisation," they used all means to undermine, shake and destroy the roots of unity of that society, of that historical and cultural type. They assaulted that new socio-economic formation, which made up the basis of the expansion and strength of the Soviet Union, that formation that could really become the basis of solidarity among all sectors of humanity.

Precisely that solidarity, proletarian internationalism, can and should become the principle weapon in the struggle against imperialist globalization. The intervention of the patriotic nationalists against globalization should doubtlessly be welcomed, with them we can collaborate, but our principle task is to strengthen the left front, the front of the workers. That is why all deformations, false slogans, opportunist currents within this front are deadly dangerous.

Opportunism within the communist movement in our country, in the countries of Europe has a long history. At the 19th Congress of the CPSU we already mentioned, the following resolution was approved:

Nevertheless N. Khrushchev, at the following Congress, the 20th Congress, and indeed at an Enlarged Plenum of the Central Committee (for on Feb. 24, 1956, the Congress exhausted the resolution and accomplished its work, but Khrushchev’s report mentioned above was delivered Feb. 25), committed a double treason.

Instead of the program, he passed a resolution "on the cult of personality and its consequences." By 1961, he had in fact pushed out the members of the commission of the program of work (Khrushchev himself was not included in the commission, as one can see, according to his own indications), and that led to an acceptance of a "program for the construction of communism," whose content was anti-Marxist. It provided a rich soil for the rapid development of revisionism and opportunism on a world historic level. Earlier still, at the 21st Congress in 1959, Khrushchev had declared "the complete and definitive victory of socialism in the USSR," which was false and premature, and a consequence of the tendency within the group leading the Party to look for rapid and simple solutions.

From the theoretical point of view, Khrushchev’s entire 10-year period of leadership can be characterized by the refusal of any creative development of Marxism, as neo-Trotskyism, as an obvious evasion, as leftist posturing that inevitably transforms itself into right-wing opportunism. This confirms the estimation of the danger of right and left deviations in the communist movement, estimation made by Stalin: "both are worse."

It is typical that, exactly on this theme, with precision and including the contrary position, he had expressed himself so emotionally at the 19^th Congress of the CPSU, where at the request of the Central Committee he reported on changes in the party bylaws.

Khrushchev removed Article 131 from the Constitution of the USSR:

ARTICLE 131. It is the duty of every citizen of the USSR to safeguard and strengthen public, socialist property as the sacred and inviolable foundation of the Soviet system, as the source of the wealth and might of the country, as the source of the prosperous and cultured life of all the working people. Persons committing offenses against public, socialist property are enemies of the people.

Perhaps Khrushchev’s greatest crime was to have suppressed the mechanism for control and stimulation of the reduction of the cost price [point below which the producer under consideration will decline to produce—tr.]. He proclaimed that the Stalinist policy of systematically reducing prices was adventurous. This approach in particular served as the basis for the reform of 1965, which definitively confirmed the category of capitalist profit as a criterion to measure effectiveness in the socialist economy.

Often one hears that the term, "dictatorship of the proletariat," although scientifically rigorous, seems not well thought out on the socio-economic plane, that it incites the primitive mentality to uncontrolled violence. History has clearly proven that in class society, the state is simply indispensable as an apparatus of violent repression for one of the classes to guarantee its domination. Whatever the packaging of the exploiter state – "a society of equal opportunity", "broadest democracy," "respect for human rights," etc. –it is essentially the dictatorship of the owning class, of the bourgeoisie. It’s alternative is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Stalin can be accused neither of conservatism, nor of adventurism. L.M.Kaganovitch was correct when in his last memoirs he attributed to Stalin the quality of an exceptional political prudence. And in the conclusion of "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR," he proposed to gravely but firmly introduce a broad system of exchange of products directly between city and countryside and, to reduce the sphere of activity of the production of merchandise in the countryside.

At present it is incontestable that Stalin was the principle economic strategist of the country for three decades. With the exception of the first two years of the war, he never let the annual rate of real growth of production get lower than 10%. Although they have tried to erase it from the people’s memory, in the years just after the war, he carried out an annual reduction in prices as an essential element in increasing the standard of living of the working class. Stalin clearly showed how it was possible to direct a great country, using this power to achieve progress for socialism.

Stalin’s role was equally consequential in international affairs. Under Stalin the external policy in the post-war period was conducted precisely to assure that the fruits of the great victory were entirely protected, in part to secure socialism in the USSR and in part to consolidate the socialist camp. In the latter case, it was necessary to not be carried away by its expansion, but instead to solidly assimilate what had been won.

The Moscow conference of representatives of the communist parties in 1957 and 1960 had been visibly influenced by the Congress of the CPSU that took place under Khrushchev. They declared that the CPSU is not the party of the working class, but the vanguard of all the people, and consequently the thesis of the dictatorship of the proletariat was removed from the documents of the international communist movement. They explained events based not on the struggle between two systems but on their peaceful coexistence. This provoked lively criticism from the Chinese Communist Party.

In the Conference declaration of the representatives of the communist and workers’ parties in November 1960, it was said: "Now the socio-economic possibility for the restoration of capitalism has been eliminated, not only in the Soviet Union, but also in other socialist countries. The united might of the socialist camp solidly guarantees the protection of each socialist country from attacks on the part of imperialist reaction. Thus the cohesion of the socialist states in a unified camp, their solid unity and the growing power of the camp guarantees within the framework of the entire system a complete victory of socialism."

This position, like a complete series of others, tilts toward exaggeration, toward an absence of dialectics, and confuses desire with reality.

In the documents of the Conference of representatives of communist and workers’ parties, you can find formulations throughout that would still be completely correct today:

But what is well expressed in theory is not always observed in practice. And the poisoned seeds of opportunism sown by Khrushchev already began to send up abundant shoots at the beginning of the 1960s.

Thus the plenum of the Central Bureau of the Norwegian Communist Party wrote in its declaration of January 1963: "We the PC of Norway, will attend to our position involving different questions of an ideological character."

And then there was the position of the Italian CP: "It is possible that we will have to find new forms of unity among the parties, while conserving the maximum respect for the autonomy of each of them, while retaining sentiments of responsibility for which we have always conducted ourselves with zeal, because we were the first to advocate the rejection of the theory of the state and of the guiding party. Responsibility, democracy, the diffusion of ideas between different parties and within each party make up the path we must take to save and consolidate unity."

"Italian socialist society should be based on democracy on the condition of the principle of the free and democratic expression of the majority..." (L.Longo, interventions of May 1963 and November 1964)

Here are still more examples: "The French Communist Party, in accepting the multiparty system, has proposed a strict and lasting collaboration between the Communist and Socialist parties, not only for today, in the struggle against the regime of personal power and for democracy, but also tomorrow with the aim of constructing socialism together, creating with their success the conditions for its occurrence, based on a broad democratic union between the working class, the toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia and intermediate classes." (V. Rochet, November 1964)

"The democratic organizations in our country are now so strong, that, by correctly using their unified power, one can eliminate the domination of capital and reach popular power" (Program of the CP of Sweden, 1964)

If the International Congress in 1957 was held under the slogan of the dethroning of the "personality cult," in 1969 the principle theme was Maoism or "left sectarianism" according to the official agenda, and the events of Czechoslovakia of 1968. Ideological divergences were reinforced and an open criticism manifested with regard to the CPSU.

"We estimate that the tendency to cling to these slogans and to pronounce these ideological decrees, by those who hold on to other positions, is negative: One tries to explain whatever divergence exists by a "deviation" from the purity of instruction, while one doesn’t know who should be the guardian of that purity. That means in fact that not only are these divergences exacerbated, but it also blocks the road toward understanding the objective reasons, the real interests, that are found at their source." (E. Berlinguer, Italian CP) Here is located the beginning of the root of "Eurocommunism," that same which, in the second half of the past century, substituted itself for Marxism-Leninism in the foundation of numerous communist parties of Western Europe and led to their degeneration.

Now we see specifically that "Eurocommunism" is nothing other than a contemporary form of extreme right-wing opportunism. It is responsible for the fall of the West European communist movement. It is also the reason for the disappearance from the European political arena of a series of communist parties, which, a half century ago, were the vanguard, and the pride of the worldwide revolutionary anti-imperialist movement.

That is why practically all the communist parties in the developed capitalist countries intervened in favor of an alternative to force to resolve the crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1968. G. Gusak made a worthy response to them:

Thus all the negative tendencies in the worker and communist movement, including in the Soviet Union, have their source in a history not so far in the past. The events at the end of last year, of which we informed the fraternal parties, and whose initiators were the modern right opportunists with the head of the leadership of the greatest Communist (by name only) party of the Russian Federation, and find their origin there.

For the conference participants, it is interesting to know one of the declarations of G. Djuganov to the "Plenum" of Jan. 20, 2001, which the control commission of the CPU-CPSU of February 24 had elsewhere recognized as contrary to the party rules and illegal: "One of the greatest accomplishments of the 20^th Century was the creation of a great union, which was the flame and hope of all the workers, and the creation of the European Union, which today prospers and carries out its policies quite intelligently and clear-sightedly."

And again an opinion of the ex-brother in arms G. Djuganov to the Russian National Patriotic Union: "The European social democrats of the 1990s integrated themselves into the global process in a masterful fashion, finding the "happy medium", which at the same time took account of the laws of human evolution, including the globalising processes of the 1990s, and of the national specificities that would be able to resist the erasure of national identity." This declaration was made when in the countryside of Serbia, of Kosovo and Metohia, uranium shells continued to sow invisible and silent death. Those were the traces of NATO’s bombing and shelling, unconditionally supported by the European social democrats who formed the core of the Socialist International and directing the governments of 13 countries of Western Europe. Here is an example with which our "constructive-intransigent" opponents are trying to inspire the people.

We remain firmly based on class positions, revolutionary, proletarian, and lead a determined combat to attract broad masses of workers to our sides.

Lenin’s formulation remains useful today: "Opportunism consists in sacrificing fundamental interests in order to gain a specific an temporary advantage. Here is the key to the theoretical definition of opportunism." This position is concretized by the words of comrade Gus Hall, who recently died:

Comrade Kim Jong Il, leader of the Korean people, speaks in an expressive and convincing fashion of the extreme danger of opportunism, whose essence consists in signing on to "global" civilization, that is, U.S.: "Today the most dangerous and harmful thing is kowtowing to the imperialists in the United Sates. Closely related to the sentiment of fear, admiration of the United States, that kowtowing has caused great damage to the revolutionary struggle of the peoples. It serves as the most harmful ideological poison; it paralyzes the people’s class-consciousness.

Today we can say it clearly: without victory over opportunism we cannot expect unity of the communist movement. But without that unity we cannot defeat the mortal danger for all humanity that imperialist globalization represents.

Moscow, March 2001.