Anti-imperialist united front 6

I gave here my reasons why I think that a real Marxist analyse of ACTUAL capitalism (so imperialism) is needed. Because already IN FACT anti-imperialist resistance is developing in the world, but often by organizations that lack (that is my opinion) a scientific analyse to base their anti-imperialist strategy on. A lot of those organizations that are developing a real anti-imperialist resistance were, for a lot of reasons, ORIGINALLY ANTI-Marxist and ANTI-communist. And on the top of it: ACTUAL self-declared communist, revolutionary or “Marxist-Leninist” in their “neighbourhood” produce (and of that I gave here also some examples) rather dogmatic or very general analyzing of actual capitalism. And some of those self-declared communist, Marxist organizations are IN FACT becoming REFORMIST organizations, defending their reformism with Marxist-SOUNDING arguments.

So now here my attempt of an analyse of actual imperialism, as a base to develop an anti-imperialist strategy.

The core, the main-form in which actual imperialism (being the last possible stage of capitalism) is, as I will call it: the globalised integrated production-chain (GIPC). I purposely don’t use the term monopoly here, because a GIPC is composed itself by different monopolies (out of different production-SECTORS). Like the term “ownership”, is the term "GIPC" not a bourgeois economical or juridical concept or definition. It are rather my personal principal definitions, concepts or conclusions. By using examples I will legitimise these concepts.

PRODUCTION-SYSTEM

A GIPC is composed by different monopolies in different production-sectors. These sectors are each a stage in the production-process of - finally - the production of consumer-goods that are to be SOLD to REALISE the total surplus-value.

The final surplus-value is composed out of pieces of surplus-value made out of the exploitation of the work-force of the workers involved in the whole production-chain (the whole GIPC, from winning and refining of the natural resources to the production of the final product). This is a typical characteristic of imperialism and is what Lenin called “the socialising of the production”.

REMARK: this total of surplus-value finally realised after the selling of the end-product is more than just the “benefit” or “profit” of the final end-product-selling “enterprise”, (being for example cars, mobile-phones or computers).

There exist monopolies of natural resources for the winning, digging, extracting or in another way APPROPIATING of natural resources as oil, coal, all kind of metal – or mineral-ores, agricultural products  (grain, rice, soya-beans, vegetables, natural textile-fibres) or of forest-cultural products (wood, rubber) and all kind of natural pharmaceutical resources.

There are the monopolies of first refining and first processing of all those resources

There are the monopolies of the production of all kind of intermediary products

There are the monopolies of production or assembling of final products

There are the monopolies of logistics, transport, distribution and selling and of financing

There are the monopolies for the production of all kind of industrial goods needed in all those monopolies here above

The ownership of all those monopolies is mostly “distributed” between those capitalists who have the monopolies “stream-upward” or “downstream” ALSO in “divided” ownership.

The production-process in a GIPC goes from the winning, digging or extracting of the natural ressources to the distribution and selling/delivery of the final product. In the whole production-chain surplus-value is formed out of the exploitation of the workers involved in the production along the whole production-chain. That surplus-value is finally realised by the SELLING of the end-product.

The production is social; the appropriation of the surplus-value is private.

The REALISATION of the surplus-value, composed through the social production is based on the SELLING of the final product for its value: the incorporated (social) working-time. That surplus-value is (just as the total production) primarily appropriated by the capitalists (who have the collective ownership of such a GIPC) and is distributed among them.

The primary natural resources are been appropriated by the capitalists in regions in the world were the popular masses are living under colonial production-relations. This appropriation is done by the monopolies themselves, by local undertaking enterprises or mercenary militias. The local popular masses living in the extraction-regions are being expropriated daily.

The capitalists are only paying for the work to dig or extract the natural resources or for making them « production-ripe ». The wages or salaries of the workers (coming out of the popular masses that are been expropriated) are hold very low because the colonial production-relations are keeping whole populations (out of which the local workers are coming) in permanent insecurity, poverty, oppression. On that enormous exploitation (the free expropriation and the very low wages) is based the « buy out » of class-struggle and eventually revolutionary aspirations of the workers in the imperialist centres.

COMPETITION

Of course competition exists between the different monopolies in a same stage in the production-process, EVEN as those monopolies are “owned” in a “divided” ownership by the same capitalists.

But so there can also be competition between departments, subsidiaries or division in one monopoly. This is also the case as the different  inter-competing monopolies are in fact just different ”lines of supply” of a monopoly higher in the chain of production of a GIPC. Competition is compelling each division, department or monopoly to increase the level of exploitation and so to increase the surplus-value as a result of this.

SURPLUS-VALUE

Everywhere in the GIPC, on each place in the production-process surplus-value is made out of the exploitation of the in the production involved workers. The total amount of surplus-value is distributed among the different capitalists in relation of the part of “ownership” that they have of the whole GIPC. Although the surplus-value (in PARTS of surplus value) is often already distributed earlier (a kind of advanced payment), surplus-value is only then REALISED when the final end-product is sold.

Example of the composition of a GIPC of cars

- Resources: oil (as fuel and as feedstock for base-products), all kinds of metals (out of ores or in the form of already transformed or refined products as steel, alloys,), all kind of sands and salts (for example for glass)

- Refining: to fuel, feedstock for the production of plastics, carbon-fibres, base-products for electronic components

- Production of intermediary products: electronic circuits, layered glass, metal-processing, plastic-processing and further stream downward: coach-work, engines, component of electronic monitoring, textile-production, processing of textile, seat-production, tire-production

- Logistic

- Transport between all the stages of production

- The production of the production-lines, production-machinery, robots, the production-halls......

- Finance in all the stages of the production

- End-assembling

- Distribution: the selling of the endproduct to a consumer that can buy it... realising the surplusvalue (of which the biggest part is already advanced appropriated by the capitalists)

OWNERSHIP

The ownership of such a GIPC is of course in hands of capitalists. But different capitalist “owners” have a different proportion of ownership. This ownership of means of production is a principal term not always identical to bourgeois legally or bourgeois economical defined ownership.

Because the quasi monopoly of a certain enterprise about the supply of certain products of their “undertakers” or the financing of that undertaker, about the delivery of machines or resources or industrial goods makes that that enterprise is in fact “owner” of that undertaker. That enterprise stays in a same “ownership”-relation with certain monopolies. The “ownership” of that monopoly is distributed among “shares”. And “shares” are not only owned by individuals but also again by enterprises of financial enterprises.

For example:

Crucial resources are dug in Africa by workers in quasi-slavery, controlled by military groups. Those minerals or ores are in fact appropriated by those military groups and come -by different little companies in hands of just some big companies who have the monopoly of the purchasing of those ores and minerals. In fact the “owners” of that big monopoly ARE IN FACT so also “owners” of those military groups and those little trading companies and are those workers working in quasi-slavery a part of the workers involved in the whole GIPC. So SIMILAR monopoly production-relations are existing further stream-downward in that GIPC, in the refining, the production of intermediary products, in the assembling of the end-product: that car, that computer, that mobile-phone, that television, those wooden products used in the construction of houses, yes even those food-products produced on the base of products grown in Africa, Asia or South-America.

Individual capitalists, but mostly groups of capitalists have a certain percentage of ownership of the different parts of such a GIPC... So a whole GIPC is “collectively” owned by a larger group of capitalists.

So the main-form in which the means of production exist - GIPC's - are “collective” property of a larger group of capitalists (who in a certain manner of organisation and in different percentages are owners of the different parts of such a GIPC). In an earlier stage of imperialism those “parts” (each of them is itself a monopoly in a certain production-sector) were each owned by a more or less distinct group of capitalists, who got their share of the surplus-value on the moment of the selling that resource, of the selling of that intermediary product or of the selling of that production-machinery.

In the time of Marx (in the PRE-imperialist stage as one can say), the main-form was a distinct enterprise owned by an individual capitalist or a capitalist-family.

The ownership of a GIPC is distributed among groups of capitalists (grouped in all kind of financial institutions exerting that “ownership” for them). An individual capitalist is just “owner” for just a part AND often also for a part “owner” of a COMPETING GIPC. Individual or littler groups of capitalists sometime “own” a PART of the total GIPC.

But the parts of a GIPC depend of each other and so the ownership of the total GIPC is in hands of the total group of owners who together have the hundred percent ownership of that GIPC.

An oil-monopoly (and so the owners of that monopoly, mostly grouped in financial companies as all kinds of bancs, holdings etc.) control (by a certain percentage of ownership, by having the monopoly on delivering,....) energy-monopolies (fuel for cars, engines, electricity-producing,....) and chemical monopolies, who themselves control in a similar way the production of intermediary products (bulk-plastics, base-products for higher engineered plastics), who themselves control in a similar way the monopolies that produce all kind of end-products (cars, furniture, electronic and electric equipment etc..)

The biggest shareholders of an oil-monopoly have also participation and are so for a part also owner of for example resources-monopolies (metal-ores ...for ex coltan) or participation of refining-companies, cracking-installations, producers of plastic-base-products, producers of polymers, plastic-moulding-enterprises...

Big share-holders or groups of big share-holders are also participating in all kind of financial companies, who themselves are financing all stages of the production and also of non-monopolies. So is the control (and in fact the « ownership of means of productions » in the hands of a relative little group of the real capitalists, (the capitalists in capitalism in the stage of imperialism of which the main-form is, the GIPC)

AND “FREE” COMPETITION?

Although you can not speak anymore of FREE competition (FREE competition disappears in the imperialist stage of capitalism) competition is NOT disappearing (it is a characteristic of capitalism being the most advanced system of COMMODITY-production) by the development of monopolies and the integrating of the monopolies in what I call GIPC's.

Capitalist competition RE-appears every moment again, but now WITHIN the monopoly, for example between the part of that monopoly that is mostly working out of the American continent and the part of that same monopoly that is working out of the European continent.

The competition is becoming even sharper and sharper, involving IN that competition-struggle the whole population of big regions in the world.

Competition exists between whole GIPC's, composed out of monopolies that are succeeding each other in the production-process. Competition reappears every moment between departments, divisions and other parts of a GIPC or a composing monopoly, or also between two monopolies in one GIPC on a certain aspect of or intermediary product in the whole production-process.

This occurs for example where those monopolies are competing in the delivery of a certain resource, or in the delivery of a certain intermediary product or in the assembling of the end-product or in the distribution of the end-product.So a certain form of "nationalism" existing in a certain "colony" can create an ideologye of competition INSIDE the working class of the colonised popular masses, when this "nationalism" is opposing another "nationalism" of another "colony". These forms of "nationalism" are reflecting more existing competition between capitalists....

For example Solvay (I analysed this in Etudes Marxistes 18/1993:  "Un exemple de restructuration dans l'industrie chimique : la production de soude chez Solvay" you can read it here -in french- on marx.be)

The winning of natural soda, the soda-mining activities in the United States and the distribution-cartel of that soda is for a big part in hands of Solvay (the “American” part of Solvay). The industrial production of soda in Europe and the natural winning of soda in Turkey and Eastern-Europe are ALSO in the hands of Solvay.

Solvay-Europe wanted support of Europe against dumping-prices of soda coming out of America  ... this was turning for a part against Solvay-America but of course also against competition of Solvay-America.

And of course Solvay-America benefited of the export-supporting activities for the soda coming out of America. While Solvay-Europe “suffered” under this “competition”.

THE STATE

The state-organs are also “global”. But the reality is the existing not of one global state to protect global imperialism but different states that are playing a role in the competition-position of GIPC's but also in the competition-position against each other of the different composing parts of one GIPC.

Finally it seemed to be logic that for those GIPC's as main characteristic of actual imperialism that there would be one global state. Well, there exist SOME state-organs in that direction: the IMF, the World-bank, the UN, the UN military forces, the NATO...

And there are in fact COLLECTIVE interests of the imperialists. For example; the interventions of the “imperialist alliance” against revolutionary developments wherever in the world which can threatening the ongoing of existence of imperialism... even intervention IN each other imperialist centre to support there the fight against and for the defeat of revolutionary developments.

But there exists also COMPETITION, and is a characteristic of imperialism. This makes that the development of one central global state is always stopped and hindered and replaced y a development of REGIONAL state-apparatuses.

For example of the STATE America, dominated by the United States but to which can also be counted Canada and Mexico.

So there is the state European Union, as there is Russia where exists a development to integrate as much as possible of the former Soviet-Union in one imperialist state. The Peoples Republic of China has started a free development of capitalism and in the actual state of global imperialism it can only mean that their former dictatorship of the workers will develop into an imperialist state-apparatus.

The development of the EU goes into the direction of integrating Turkey and/or Israel into that state-apparatus, although competition coming out of that other imperialist centre can slow down that evolution....and of course can be slowed down by revolutionary developments.....

A state-apparatus is something that is continuous in development following the development of capitalism.

The struggle against (neo-) colonial supremacy of imperialism result in a unification of an as big as possible unified anti-imperialist resistance, that based on discussion, education, making conscious and raising materialist historical consciousness. This will result to the development of as big as possible unified anti-colonial states.

How bigger the unification of the anti-imperialist resistance, how higher the revolutionary consciousness, how much the popular masses will join that anti-imperialist resistance and with what revolutionary knowledge, is depending of the ideological and political struggle inside that nationalist anti-imperialist struggle-movement, of the development of a real leading vanguard organisation etc....

The colonised part of the world, or those parts of the world that are submitted by imperialism to colonial production-relations are considered by the imperialisms (that is to say by the “legal use of repression or intervention”) making an integrated part of an imperialist state. That is for example materialised in the colonial front-post Israel considered to be a part of the state EU and by which Europe (in our example) will affirm and re-affirm and defend the colonial production-relations put on the biggest part of the Arab region.

This ALSO means that the working class in an imperialist centre (for ex. the EU) has to feel itself allied with the working-class that is a part of the population living under colonial production-relations. (So the European working-class with the Arab working-class as a part of the Arab popular masses ... or with the African working class as a part of the African popular masses)

The by colonisation drawn borders ( result of mutual competition and by a “divide and rule” ideology, are artificial borders that can be overcome with at the end for example one big state Africa or one big Arab state or one South-American (Bolivarian) state like once the one big Soviet-union or one big Chinese Peoples Republic.

That part of the working class in an imperialist centre but seen historically coming recently out or a region in the world that is living under (neo-)colonial production-relations (installed and re-affirmed by imperialism) can play a big role in raising the consciousness of the whole working class in that imperialist region.

In the next article I come one of the reasons of this attempt of me to make a CONCRETE ACTUALISED analyse of capitalism (in its actual IMPERIALIST stage): the making of a CONCRETE ACTUALISED CLASS-ANALYSIS.

Anti-imperialist united front 5

Today, a part of the capitalist class (of capitalism in the stage of imperialism) is “located” in the “colonised region” itself. I am not talking about comprador-bourgeoisie, people whose income or power is linked to the work they do, to protect the interests of imperialism, linking their own interests totally to those of imperialism.

I am talking about people who can be considered as “owner” (in imperialism it is almost always, “CO-owner” as I will explain later) of “means of productions”.

So the Saudi-family-clans are NOT “just” bourgeois who have linked their interests to those of imperialism, they are a part of the world-capitalist class (of capitalism in the stage of imperialism so I speak further about “imperialist-capitalists”)

This count also, I think (and I will search also information about this later) for example, for the “owners” of the “privatised” state-enterprises in China, and Russia, now becoming worldwide monopolies, and the “Indian” (co-)owners of Arcelor-Mittal and the “Brazilian” (co-)owners of Inbev. They are, for example, now responsible for the “capital-export” out of Saudi-Arabia (or China, Russia, India, Brazil)..... into the CENTRES of imperialism. And this is then for example a characteristic of imperialism that has further developed than it was in the time that Lenin wrote his analyse. At that moment, you have the BEGINNING of the phenomena “capital-export” (out of the imperialist centres to the colonised regions) that was becoming more important than the “export of commodities” to the colonies, after, lets say, 1900.

That “ownership” exists by having for example a controlling quantity of shares, having controlling share or having centralised capital in financial institutions that have their interests in the big monopolies by the way of the enormous amount of ....debts those monopolies permanently have.

The Saudis for example have their “ownership” on big parts of worldwide production-chains by way of ARAMCO and SABIC.

“About SABIC
Headquartered in Riyadh, SABIC was founded in 1976 when the Saudi Arabian Government decided to use the hydrocarbon gases associated with its oil production as the principal feedstock for production of chemicals, polymers and fertilizers. The Saudi Arabian Government owns 70 percent of SABIC shares with the remaining 30 percent held by private investors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) is the world’s 5th largest petrochemicals company. The company is among the world’s market leaders in the production of polyethylene, polypropylene and other advanced thermoplastics, glycols, methanol and fertilizers.
In Saudi Arabia, the company has 20 world-scale complexes and 19 of them are located in the industrial cities of Al-Jubail and Yanbu. Some of these complexes are operated with multi-national joint venture partners such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Mitsubishi Chemicals. Elsewhere, SABIC manufactures on a global scale in more than 45 countries in the Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. SABIC’s overall production has increased from 27 million metric tons in 2001 to 55 million metric tons in 2007.

About Saudi Aramco
Saudi Aramco is one of the largest oil companies in the world and is 100% owned by the government of Saudi Arabia. It is a fully-integrated, global petroleum enterprise and a world leader in exploration and producing, refining, distribution, shipping and marketing. It manages proven reserves of 260 billion barrels of crude oil and it manages the fourth-largest gas reserves in the world, 239.5 trillion cubic feet. Saudi Aramco, through its affiliate, Vela Marine International Ltd, owns and operates the world's second largest tanker fleet to help transport its crude oil production, which amounted to 3.3 billion barrels in 2005. Saudi Aramco, through its affiliates, has joint ventures and subsidiary offices in China, Japan, Netherlands, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and the United States. Saudi Aramco also refines and distributes oil products throughout the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to meet domestic daily energy demands.[1] “

With their ownership over SABIC and ARAMCO the Saudis have co-ownership, together with imperialist capitalists located in the imperialist centres itself (US, Japan or Europe). They have also co-ownerships together with imperialist capitalists located in colonised regions (in South-America, India) or in former socialist countries (China or Russia) this co-ownership is mutual. So you can say that other imperialist capitalists have co-ownership over Saudi capital. “Legally” it seems bizarre, because SABIC and ARAMCO are   'officially” owned only by Saudis, but I will explain later that ownership over means of productions is not bound by bourgeois economic or juridical principles)

That “co-ownership” is for a big part a result of foreign direct investments (FDI) that goes to joint-ventures and “mergers and acquisitions” (M&A)

Here you can say that the Saudis get the “co-ownership” over a part of the globalised integrated production-chain of ......cars.

SABIC to acquire Owens Corning's share in STAMAX BV, April 1, 2003

Paris, France, (April 1, 2003): SABIC Europe announced today that it will acquire Owens Corning’s 50% share in StaMax BV, a joint venture formed in 1999. This gives SABIC full ownership of this company that produces StaMax® P long glass fibre polypropylene composite material. Under the new arrangement, Owens Corning will be the supplier of PerforMax® glass fibre. StaMax BV will use Owens Corning’s unique patented process and this proprietary glass fibre to produce and sell material in the European market.
As part of the agreement, SABIC will manufacture StaMax P under license from Owens Corning and will have exclusive production and sales rights for StaMax P in the European market. (...)
StaMax P is a lightweight, long fibre glass polypropylene thermoplastic for semi-structural applications that replaces metal and bridges the gap between short-fibre compounds and glass mat thermoplastics (GMT). It was developed by SABIC Europe (formerly DSM) in partnership with Owens Corning. The two companies founded StaMax BV in 1999, and set up a production line in Genk (Belgium).
The thermal and mechanical properties of StaMax P – such as high heat-deflection temperatures, low thermal expansion and high stiffness, high impact resistance, low creep and high tensile strength – make it highly suitable for semi-structural applications in the automotive industry. Highly suitable applications include front-end modules, dashboard carriers, door modules and under-body shielding. StaMax is widely accepted and increasingly used in these applications throughout the European automotive industry.(...)
SABIC Europe is part of SABIC, the Middle East’s largest petrochemicals company, which is based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. SABIC’s business activities have been organized into six Strategic Business Units (SBUs): Basic Chemicals, Intermediates, Polyolefins, PVC & Polyester, Fertilizers and Metals. SABIC has two large industrial sites in Saudi Arabia (Al-Jubail and Yanbu), with sixteen world-scale production complexes. In addition, SABIC has interests in three production complexes in Bahrain. Over the last sixteen years SABIC’s overall production capacity has increased considerably. In 2002 it had total sales of USD 9.06 billion.[2]

That “co-ownership” over means of productions the Saudis has it “collectively” or together with other oil-companies.

While the Saudis have “only” the ownership over the oil in the underground of that desert they once claimed to be their property (expropriation the rest of the Arab people), with their “co-ownership” they “own” (together with the rest of the imperialist capitalists) almost ALL the oil-sources. “Co-ownership of means of productions” means, having sometimes COLLECTIVE interests with other imperialist capitalists, and sometimes COMPETITION, Sometimes “common interests” with some capitalists to face competition with other (groups of) capitalists.

“SABIC to acquire DSM's petrochemicals business Heerlen, NL, 3-Apr-2002 Joint press release

DSM and SABIC, the largest petrochemicals producer in the Middle East, have reached an agreement in principle on the purchase of DSM's petrochemicals business by SABIC. The transaction involves the transfer of all shares of the companies that together form DSM Petrochemicals (DPC), the associated DPC participations and sales activities, and the related technology positions, patents and trade names.(....)
The Middle East's largest petrochemicals company, SABIC, is based in Riyadh, Saudi-Arabia. It was founded in 1976, when the Saudi Arabian government decided to use the hydrocarbon gases released in the production of oil as raw materials for the production of chemicals and polymers.
The Saudi Arabian government owns 70% of the SABIC shares. The remaining 30% are held by private investors in Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
SABIC's business activities have been organized into Strategic Business Units (SBU), which have been clustered in five Industry Groups: Basic Chemicals, Polymers, Intermediates, Fertilizers and Metals.
SABIC has two large industrial sites in Saudi Arabia (Al-Jubail and Yanbu), with sixteen world-scale production complexes. Some of these production complexes are operated with multi-national partners, such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, Fortum, Ecofuel/ENI and Mitsubishi Chemicals. In addition, SABIC has interests in three production complexes in Bahrain. Over the last sixteen years SABIC's overall production capacity has increased considerably. In 2001 it amounted to 35 million mtpa in 2001.
SABIC employs about 14,500 people worldwide, most of who are based in Saudi-Arabia. In 2001 SABIC posted sales of approx. SR 29 billion (EUR 8.9 billion) and a net profit of approx. SR 1.8 billion (EUR 550 million)[3]. “

In his analyse of 1990, Ludo Martens (until 1995 EFFECTIVE president of the WPB - PVDA, pvda.be) describes:

“Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Oman and Qatar are artificial states having together a population of no more than 10 million, but owning 670 billion dollar in foreign countries. At the same time the Arab states with the biggest population (190 million) have a foreign debt of 208 billion dollar, which is a burden for the working population.  The royal family of Kuwait owns a private fortune of 50 billion dollar. King Fahd of Saudi Arabia owns 18 billion dollar. In Kuwait the yearly income pro inhabitant is 14.000 dollar, while in South Yemen it is no more than 420 dollar, in Morocco 610 dollar and in Egypt 680 dollar. The six Gulf-states invest only 7% of their financial means in the Arab world en than only for those economic sectors that produce luxury goods designated for the rich.[4] The leading class in Kuwait controls 100 billion dollar abroad, of which the half is administrated by the “Kuwait Investment Office”. This company owns 10% of BP (British Petroleum). In Germany she controls 25% of Hoechst, 17% of Daimler-Benz, 15% of Metalgeselschaft. In Spain she has shares in 70 important companies. In Italy she owns 6,7% of the shares of the Fiat holding. In the United States she is present in 480 big companies.[5] [6]"

There is a difference between the “state” Saudi-Arabia (which you can consider as an imperialist entity, the “banc” or “holding” of the Saudi family-clans) and the “states”, once colonies, trying to develop a economy that is NOT totally “owned” by imperialist capitalists, so a development of a “national” state-capitalism that should “compete” with the former colonising imperialists. Saudi-Arabia is an imperialist entity is also different from former colonies run by a comprador-bourgeoisie allowing the expropriation of their inhabitants by the imperialist monopolies: for example the comprador-bourgeoisie of Nigeria giving Shell all possibilities to expropriate the Nigerian people.

“Turkey and Egypt, the leading FDI recipients, reduced corporate income taxes and expanded their promotional efforts. Kuwait also plans to cut corporation tax from 55% to 25% in order to attract more FDI into the non-oil sector.

In the extractive sector, Qatar unveiled changes in contractual/ tender conditions, in order to facilitate the process of bidding for and securing contracts managed by Qatar Petroleum (QP), the main vehicle for energy exploration and development. These changes, when implemented, should have a major impact on FDI within the context of Qatar's gas expansion drive. Mega schemes in the pipeline include the 'Pearl Project'--51% and 49% owned by QP and Royal Dutch Shell. It will be the world's largest gas-to-liquid plant costing $18,000m and due on-stream by 2011. But few countries permit foreign participation in the upstream oil sector, which explains modest inward FDI into primary industry, despite huge reserves. The MENA region holds two-thirds of global proved oil reserves, equivalent to 801bn barrels. Others (notably Iran) impose stringent conditions on foreign energy companies, whilst in Algeria the state-owned Sonatrach must hold a minimum 51% stake in all hydrocarbons projects. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia has allowed Shell and France's Total to invest in natural gas exploration projects in the Rub Al Khali desert (Empty Quarter).[7]”

This is explaining the whole political, economical, ideological (and in the near future ARMED?) intervention on Iran by the imperialists. Iran has to put in power a comprador-bourgeoisie that will “integrate” Iran in the imperialist control. As a reward “new owners” of the privatised Iranian oil-sources are allowed to enter the little circle of imperialist capitalists. (As were once the Saudi and Kuwaiti family-clans and the emirs-families of the U.E.A.)

In a study specific about FDI, “Foreign Direct Investment Surged 29% Worldwide in 2005”[8], the introduction says:

“The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released its authoritative annual appraisal of global FDI trends earlier this week. Global Insight analyses its findings, and asks whether the impressive cross-border flows of 2005 will be repeated over subsequent years”

The conclusion about Iran is clear....:

“Iran's ongoing standoff with the international community over its nuclear programme extracted a negative toll as it failed to attract more inflows than in previous years. The election of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as Iranian president and his hostile international posture have created an added obstacle to foreign investment.[9]”

Why you can say that the Saudi (and Kuwaiti, and of UAE) leading families are part of the imperialist capitalist class, and that they “(co-)owns” the oil in the whole Arab world.
Helped by the colonisers, some Arab family-clans formed entities in the Arab world (borders of other countries were also drawn by the different colonising countries, and claimed the oil in the ground as their own and so expropriating the Arab people, depriving them from the means for their economic development.
In other former colonies or newly “colonised” countries, for example Iraq, the oil is now “owned” (under control of and controlling the technology, transport, refining, the prises etc) by the big oil companies. They exerted that “ownership” by the use of an installed comprador-bourgeoisie. (The Iraqi, but former leader of a “Kurdish” organisation, Talebani put in a leading position in Iraq by the Americans, was working in earlier days for the CIA) But those big oil-companies have al kind “connections” with for example the Saudi companies. And the Saudi companies have shares in and joint-ventures with those and other oil-companies.
This is the way that imperialist capitalist has “ownership” (so mostly “collective” and in “shared” ownership) over the most important “means of productions” in the world.
As co-owners they have common interests in good colonial production-relations of imperialism put on the whole Arab region. As competitors they tried to get the highest profits, higher than their competitors.
These are some characteristics of imperialism, as I see it, which developed further than in the time that Lenin wrote his book. I will argue this in the next article.

---

[1]              http://www.jeccomposites.com/composites-news/5037/PP-PE.html,  23 Juli 2008,  SABIC to market polyolefin products of Saudi Aramco in China

[2]              http://sabic.ru/news-media-relations/news/_en/sabictoacquir.htm

[3]              http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/media/press_releases/Sabic_acquire_DSM_April32002.htm

[4]    Newsweek, 13 August '90, p. 13.

[5]    Libèration, a weekly of Morocco 3-17 August '90.

[6]    “Why the United States and Israel want WAR in the Middle East”, Ludo Martens, Solidair nr 32, 29 August 1990.

[7]              http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2742/is_384/ai_n25015921/

[8]              http://www.globalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail7225.htm

[9]              http://www.globalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail7225.htm

Anti-imperialist united front 4

To analyse the (actual) capitalist world, one has to begin with a study of for example” The Capital” of Marx, to learn about the general laws of development of capitalism. Marx could only apply his findings on the -for him -“actual” and “concrete” capitalist society. Those general laws of development are working in another way in the capitalist world coming in the stage of imperialism.
And Lenin apply the findings of Marx on the for HIM “actual” and “concrete” world. (Eventually read my former article on this subject)

“....a very important feature of capitalism in its highest stage of development is so-called combination of production, that is to say, the grouping in a single enterprise of different branches of industry, which either represent the consecutive stages in the processing of raw materials (for example, the smelting of iron ore into pig-iron, the conversion of pig-iron into steel, and then, perhaps, the manufacture of steel goods)—or are auxiliary to one another (for example, the utilisation of scrap, or of by-products, the manufacture of packing materials, etc.).
“Combination,” writes Hilferding, “levels out the fluctuations of trade and therefore assures to the combined enterprises a more stable rate of profit. Secondly, combination has the effect of eliminating trade. Thirdly, it has the effect of rendering possible technical improvements, and, consequently, the acquisition of superprofits over and above those obtained by the ‘pure’ (i.e,, non-combined) enterprises. Fourthly, it strengthens the position of the combined enterprises relative to the ‘pure’ enterprises, strengthens them in the competitive struggle in periods of serious depression, when the fall in prices of raw materials does not keep pace with the fall in prices of manufactured goods.”[1]    
(....) Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism.
Cartels come to an agreement on the terms of sale, dates of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc.”[2]       (....)
Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised.
This is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even, as we shall see, of several countries, or of the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations “divide” them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labour is monopolised, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured—railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation.
Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognised free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable. [3]“

All those developments that had just begun in the time of Lenin, have become more general today and even develop on a higher level.
Read for example:

SAUDI ARABIA - Saudi Investments Overseas - The Private Placements. Publication: APS Review Gas Market Trends. Date: Monday, October 17 2005

Private Saudi businesses have built up an impressive overseas presence, ranging from the upstream end to oil refining and distribution. They are linked to the Saudi royal family in one way or another. Their downstream acquisitions abroad are seen as a backdoor way for Saudi oil and refined products to penetrate markets where Saudi Aramco has no presence, such as South America, Central Asia and Russia.
Saudi businessmen are generally cautious in their approach; and deals with foreign partners are reached without publicity. The main private operators involved in overseas upstream and downstream activities are the following:
Nimir Petroleum Co. Ltd (NPC): Nimir is incorporated in Bermuda and is involved in petroleum projects in Azerbaijan, Colombia, Indonesia, Oman, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tunisia, Venezuela and Yemen. Established in August 1991, it has rapidly built up branches registered in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Russia and the US. Nimir's owners are the Bin Mahfouz family of Jeddah, a well connected clan in Saudi Arabia, which originates from Hadhramaut in Yemen. It has an array of businesses inside and outside the kingdom.
This family used to be referred to as the banker of the Saudi royals, because it used to control the National Commercial Bank (NCB), the largest bank in Saudi Arabia. But in May 1999 the state acquired 50% of NCB, removing from control the bank's chairman and CEO Khalid Bin Mahfouz.
Nimir, in Arabic meaning "tiger", was founded by Abdel Rahman and Sultan Bin Mahfouz. Khalid Bin Mahfouz is said to be overseeing its operations. The President and CEO of Nimir is Dr. Abdullah Mohammed Basodan, who originates from Hadhramaut and was previously in Saudi Aramco's planning department and an advisor to the oil ministry. Basodan is also a member of the board of Capital Investment Holdings of Bahrain, a firm controlled and chaired by Khalid Bin Mahfouz. Saudi Crown Prince Sultan ibn Abdel Aziz and his younger full-brother Prince Salman (emir of Riyadh) are said to have a stake in Nimir.
Operating and service companies in NPC include Nimir Petroleum Co. Europe Ltd. (NPCEL), Nimir Petroleum Co. USA Inc (NPC USA), Hocol (for Latin American operations) and Nimir Energy Services Ltd. (NESL). NPCEL, registered in Bermuda, identifies business opportunities for NPC.
NPCEL is based in Paris. NPC USA operates from Dallas. It procures and ships materials to NPC operations on Russia's Far Eastern island of Sakhalin and in Colombia. It provides administrative and human resource services to Petrosakh Joint Stock Co., another Nimir unit registered in Russia. NESL provides specialised services to NPC, including project management and support for technical, financial, accounting, legal, IT, risk management, and administrative needs. NESL, incorporated in Bermuda in 1991, operates from London. (...)
NPC entered Russia in October 1992 when Nimir Petroleum Petrosakh Ltd. (NPPL) acquired from Petrosakh Ltd. a 50% share in a Russian JV company which had operations in the Okruzhnoye field, in the Pogranichi Basin of Sakhalin island. Thus Petrosakh Joint Stock Co. (PJSC) was formed. PJSC commissioned its 5,000 b/d refinery on the island in April 1994. The output of the refinery is fuel oil (36%), gasoline (35%), diesel (20%) and kerosine (9%). In May 1995, NPPL raised its stake in PJSC to 95%. In 1996 new development and exploration wells were drilled and building work was completed on a marine terminal. PJSC activities involve oil gathering and separation, oil production, dehydration, gas compression and gas injection. It has built a tank farm for crude and refined products. It has an arctic camp supporting year-round operations. Exports are sent through the Okruzhnoye terminal during the summer and via the Korsakov port in the winter. Products for consumption on the island are transported via road and rail. PJSC also does seismic and geological surveys to explore for new oilfields. PJSC meets 25% of the island's consumption needs and employs about 95% of its staff of some 500 people from among the Sakhalin islanders. NPC has invested more than $150m in Sakhalin. Azerbaijan. NPC has a stake in Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium (AIOC), consisting of a 50% share in a JV with Delta Oil Co. (another private Saudi group, see following pages), called Delta Nimir Khazar Ltd (DNKL). DNKL, established in 1994, has 1.68% in AIOC. DNKL is a member of the North Absheron Operating Co. (NAOC) consortium, formed to develop the Ashrafi and Dan Ulduzu fields in the North Absheron ridge. In March 1997, Baku's parliament approved the contract on Ashrafi and Dan Ulduzu fields. The contract had been signed in December 1996 by Azeri state oil company SOCAR and Amoco (now part of BP), Unocal, Itochu and DNKL. The shares are: BP (30%), Unocal (25.5%), SOCAR (20%), Itochu (20%) and DNKL (4.5%).(.....)
Venezuela. NPC, through Hocol which now is in charge of Nimir's Latin American E&P operations, made its entry into Venezuela on June 3, 1997 in a partnership with Pennzoil (Pepco). On that date a Pennzoil-led group won a $46m contract to operate the B2X-68/79 field. The shareholding in the group was as follows: Pennzoil (60%), Hocol (NPC - 20%), Ehcopek SA (10%) and Cartera de Inversiones Venezolanas CA (10%). The field is in eastern Lake Maracaibo. B2X-68/79 covers 10,000 acres. It had 39 active wells producing about 2,500 b/d. The minimum investment required during the first three years on B2X-68/79 was $12m. Hocol now is also producing from the B2X-70/80 field in Venezuela's Lake Maracaibo. In line with new government regulation under petroleum law of late 2001, Hocol recently converted its operating agreement into a joint venture (JV) with the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), with the latter holding a controlling 60% share. All other 31 operating agreements with foreign companies have to be converted into JV with PDVSA by end-2005 (see survey of Venezuela to be serialised in Nos. 18-22 of this volume). (....)
Indonesia: NPC has negotiated a 150,000 b/d complex refinery project in East Java as JV with P.T. Gigaraya International of Indonesia and Mitsui of Japan. This was to get crude oil from Saudi Arabia. NPC has held talks on downstream ventures in Ukraine and Moldova. In 1993 it was among firms negotiating with Elf Aquitaine on a new refinery at Leuna in east Germany. NPC joined Shell in Block 10 in Romania in 1992 but pulled out later that year after disappointing results. It left Malta in 1996 for similar reasons, after prospecting with Shell in Block 7 of the southern offshore region.
Corral Petroleum Holdings (CPH) is a Swedish-registered firm owned by Mohamed Hussein al-Amoudi, of a Jeddah-based merchant clan. CPH in the first quarter of 1999 assumed control over the refining and retail businesses in Morocco. This was done through a merger of the country's two refining firms in which CPH had held the majority since May 1997: Societe Anonyme Marocaine de l'Industrie de Raffinage (Samir) and Societe Cherifienne de Petroles (SCP). The smaller refinery, at Sidi Kacem, has a nameplate capacity of 1.5m t/y. Samir's refinery has a capacity of 6.25m t/y.
CPH's local unit, Corral Holdings Morocco (CHM) merged Samir and SCP so their resources were pooled together to gain economies of scale and help CHM prepare a $700m programme for expansion. This was to include an upgrade of the two refineries, as gasoline and gasoil specifications in Morocco were to be changed by 2003.(....)
A little known Saudi firm, Ningharco, is part of a group led by Bridas of Argentina to build a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline rivalling that of Unocal-Delta. Arab Group International (AGI), based in Riyadh and headed by Prince Sultan ibn Saud ibn Abdullah al-Saud, had in 1995 agreed to take a 50% stake worth $345m in Arakis Energy of Canada, which had acreages in Sudan. AGI said is was ready to provide $405m to fund development of oilfields in central Sudan. The project's viability was questioned as it was located in a war zone. In early 1998, Mobil and Alireza were reported to be planning to invest over $200m in converting a Panamanian bunkering centre into a hub supplying fuels to Latin America. In March 2003 Saudi tycoon Mohamed bin Issa al-Jaber was negotiating to buy Phillip Holzmann's profitable US unit JA Jones for about $500m (see background in Vol. 54, No. 19).[4]

So today there exists a real imperialist class IN the colonised region. The different family clans of Saudi Arabia for example are a part of the imperialist capitalist class. They own a part of the globalised and integrated production system, so a part of the means of production.
So the capitalist class in the actual imperialism is not bound to a homeland or a “nation”. The capitalists, in groups, in a kind of “collective” way “own” the most important and for the total production in the world “means of production”. They “own” those “means of production” together, some have more (but not exclusive) ownership of the “means of production” stream-upward (the “natural” resources): Saudi family-clans own the most important sources of oil (and so expropriate each day the Arab population. Together with groups of capitalists, more originated out of the imperialist centres, an who are more (but also not exclusively)“owner” of the big oil-companies they” control” (in one way or another), and therefore you can say, they “own” the quasi-total oil-production, and therefore expropriate each day the majority of the world-population living in the colonised part of the world. Even the nations who are trying to break the colonial production-relations historically put on them and having nationalised their oil-resources (as for example Venezuela) cannot say that they are totally free of imperialist control.

Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.
Capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when labour-power itself becomes a commodity[5]

So a characteristic phenomena of imperialism, “export of capital” is nowadays happening out of the colonised region itself by that part of the imperialist capitalists whose origins lay in that region. That “export of capital” is now often done in the direction of the centres of imperialism itself.
Read for example:

Saudi-American Forum, SAF Essay #22 September 23, 2003, The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment, By Tanya C. Hsu

(...) The Kingdom holds important levels of both foreign direct investments (FDI) and passive investments. FDI is the smaller portion of total Saudi investment in the United States. The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) defines FDI as "the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign resident, of 10% or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or the equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise." According to the BEA, FDI in the United States by Saudi Arabia grew from U.S. $2.7 billion in 1998 to $4.4 billion in 2001. This produced a modest average income of between 2.3% - 5.4% per year to Saudi investors.
Throughout this four- year period, Saudi FDI represented approximately 35% of all FDI in the United States from the Middle East region. In each of these years, Saudi Arabia was the regions' single largest FDI investor in the United States. However, FDI is only a small portion of the total Saudi investments in the United States. Passive non-controlling Saudi investments in U.S. stocks, government and corporate bonds, commercial paper, bank deposits, and other securities are significantly larger than FDI.

In February 2003, total worldwide Saudi investment, including investment in the United States and Europe, was conservatively estimated at U.S. $700 billion. The United States received approximately 60% of the global Saudi investment allocation. (Europe 30%, the rest of the world 10%) (...).

Global Competition for Foreign Direct Investment

(...) Competitors for foreign investment include Europe and newly liberalized economies in the developing world. According to UNCTAD, China, India and Saudi Arabia are emerging as major investors allocating more FDI to developing countries. FDI is also flowing to high value added projects that produce high paying jobs, including research and development (R&D) outsourcing and regional headquarter operations. (...)

Passive Saudi investments are also being allocated to the home market, as movements in the Saudi stock market reveal. Investors in Saudi Arabia's stock market (Tadawal All Share Index, or TASI) realized paper gains of more than $38 billion in the first two quarters of 2003, a percentage gain of 55%. Share price increases were spurred by the end of major conflict in Iraq, strong liquidity from high oil prices, and low interest rates. The market was also boosted by the initial public offering (IPO) of the Kingdom's biggest telecommunications company, Saudi Telecom Company (STC), which gained 131% by July 2003 with a market capitalization of Saudi Riyal $117 billion (U.S. $31 billion). Total market capitalization of the 69 currently listed firms in the Saudi stock exchange is small compared to the U.S. stock market but nevertheless grew from U.S. $88.5 billion at the end of December 2002 to U.S. $127.2 billion at the end of June 2003. TASI performance over the past ten years has now converged on U.S. equity market performance as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. Saudi Arabia has opened 20 state controlled or dominated sectors, including telecommunications, water desalination, air transport and airport services, construction and management of highways, seaport services and local refineries. It plans to sell government stakes in banks and industrial units, making the country even more attractive for investment.[6]

Another example of an argument proving that imperialism analysed by Lenin has developed further:

Read the article her (I put it in a pdf-file, but you can traced it back on internet as you wish)

First I will define what I think is today: the class “bourgeoisie”. All the capitalists (the “owners” of the globalised and integrated “means of production”) together, are a part of the bourgeoisie, but also all those whose  interests are bound to the continuing of existing off capitalism are “bourgeoisie”: So all those whose income, political and economic  influence, political and economic power is “given” by the capitalists, are “bourgeoisie”.

So is Lenin talking about “comprador-bourgeoisie”: the politicians, governments, managers, ore military leaders  originated out of those colonies ruling over the local establishments of the imperialist monopolies, put into power in the colonised regions by the imperialists.

FDI you can consider it as what Lenin defined as “export of capital”.

So you can see for example see Egypt and Jordan as regions put in colonial production-relations by imperialism and ruled by a comprador bourgeoisie. But perhaps Turkey, but above all Saudi Arabia and the UAE, one can consider as imperialist entities ruled by imperialist capitalists: so (co-)owner of globalised integrated production-chains. The ownership is in different degrees. The degree of ownership depends of the part of the globalised and integrated production-chains about which there is that ownership. (I will explain this in a next article).

One argument to this I gave above where I illustrate how for example Saudi Arabia is “exporting capital”  itself(in the form of Foreign Direct Investments - FDI) and becoming “co-owner” of a part of a globalised integrated production-chain IN...... the imperialist centres.

This (as I will explain also later) has, that is at least my opinion, on the strategy f of the anti-imperialist nationalist organised masses. Where the different “nations” whose borders are historically drawn by colonialism or imperialism are a part of one anti-imperialist oriented Arab nation, locally comprador-bourgeoisie has been taken out of their - by imperialism protected - position. But Saudi Arabia has to been seen as an entity formed by capitalists who once “expropriated” (and “expropriate” each day) the Arab popular masses of their resources and “owning” all surplus-value they get out of them. So the government coming to power by the anti-imperialist nationalist Arab revolution has to “nationalise” Saudi Arabia. (Of course “Israel” has also to be “nationalised” by that same revolutionary government that can be the only power be able to allow the return of the Palestinians - the part of the Arab people that was “expropriated” by colonial forces of imperialism – to their ancestral places)

Further analyse in the next article.

---

[1]                             Finance Capital, Russ. ed., pp. 286-87 —Lenin

[2]              Out of  “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - A POPULAR OUTLINE”, Written: January-June, 1916. First published in mid-1917 in pamphlet form, Petrograd. Published according to the manuscript and verified with the text of the pamphlet. Source: Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766. Transcription\Markup: Tim Delaney & Kevin Goins (2008) Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2005. You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

[3]              Out of  “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism…..”

[4]              http://www.allbusiness.com/mining/oil-gas-extraction-crude-petroleum-natural/564012-1.html

[5]              Out of  “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.......”

[6]              http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/articles/2003/030923-saudi-investments.html

Anti-imperialist united front 3

In the former article (you can read here) I made a renewed study of the book “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism...” of Lenin. It was a CONCRETE analyse of the ACTUAL world-situation (round 1900) He mentioned already developments of imperialism, and contradictions inside imperialism, that were then beginning but now are fully developed. I think that we can use his analyse and a lot of his conclusions to make now an ACTUAL analyse of imperialism TODAY.
Opportunism (you can speak of revisionism....) in the applying of Marxist analyse result in opportunism in the “analyse” of the then (round 1900) actual and concrete world-situation and the development of imperialism. That resulted in an opportunist formulation of the strategic and organisational conclusions by a lot of “self-declared” vanguard organisations and persons. This was also already analysed critically by Lenin.

“The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders. Or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.
In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists”, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal”, regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.”[1] But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a “pious wish”.
This is also the main attitude taken by Hobson in his critique of imperialism. Hobson anticipated Kautsky in protesting against the “inevitability of imperialism” argument, and in urging the necessity of “increasing the consuming capacity” of the people (under capitalism!). The petty-bourgeois point of view in the critique of imperialism, the omnipotence of the banks, the financial oligarchy, etc., is adopted by the authors I have often quoted, such as Agahd, A. Lansburgh, L. Eschwege, and among the French writers Victor Berard, author of a superficial book entitled England and Imperialism which appeared in 1900. All these authors, who make no claim to be Marxists, contrast imperialism with free competition and democracy, condemn the Baghdad railway scheme, which is leading to conflicts and war, utter “pious wishes” for peace, etc. This applies also to the compiler of international stock and share issue statistics, A. Neymarck, who, after calculating the thousands of millions of francs representing “international” securities, exclaimed in 1912: “Is it possible to believe that peace may be disturbed ... that, in the face of these enormous figures, anyone would risk starting a war?”[2]
Such simple-mindedness on the part of the bourgeois economists is not surprising; moreover, it is in their interest to pretend to be so naive and to talk “seriously” about peace under imperialism. But what remains of Kautsky’s Marxism, when, in 1914, 1915 and 1916, he takes up the same bourgeois-reformist point of view and affirms that “everybody is agreed” (imperialists, pseudo- socialists and social-pacifists) on the matter of peace? Instead of an analysis of imperialism and an exposure of the depths of its contradictions, we have nothing but a reformist “pious wish” to wave them aside, to evade them.
Here is a sample of Kautsky’s economic criticism of imperialism. He takes the statistics of the British export and import trade with Egypt for 1872 and 1912; it seems that this export and import trade has grown more slowly than British foreign trade as a whole. From this Kautsky concludes that “we have no reason to suppose that without military occupation the growth of British trade with Egypt would have been less, simply as a result of the mere operation of economic factors”. “The urge of capital to expand ... can be best promoted, not by the violent methods of imperialism, but by peaceful democracy.”[3]
This argument of Kautsky’s, which is repeated in every key by his Russian armour-bearer (and Russian shielder of the social-chauvinists), Mr. Spectator,^[11] constitutes the basis of Kautskian critique of imperialism, and that is why we must deal with it in greater detail. We will begin with a quotation from Hilferding, whose conclusions Kautsky on many occasions, and notably in April 1915, has declared to have been “unanimously adopted by all socialist theoreticians”.
“It is not the business of the proletariat,” writes Hilferding “to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the state. The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal of restoring free competition—which has now become a reactionary ideal—but the complete elimination of competition by the abolition of capitalism.”[4] [5]“

The book of Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - A POPULAR OUTLINE.” was at the same time an answer on that opportunism as it was the base of the political strategically line of the Russian Communist Party.
In fact out of Lenins analyse followed already the conclusion of the necessity of a worldwide anti-imperialist united front, I think. To that conclusion came the Third International.... almost. In fact, I think that only the CP of the SU as the CP of China placed their revolutionary strategy ( of the national democratic -anti-imperialist – revolution into socialist revolution) that they developed IN that overall strategy of a worldwide anti-imperialist united front, that has to be developed. In the years '30 and '40 this was made very concrete in the attempt of the SUCP (under the leadership of Stalin) to build a worldwide antifascist united front. In China the development of an Anti-Japanese anti-imperialist united front was placed by Mao Zedong in its worldwide context of the struggle against fascism.
My conclusion out of this analyse of opportunism here above made by Lenin is that an “anti-imperialist resistance against the war” (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine ...and in the future war against Iran” that is NOT combined with organising the masses in tearing down imperialism in their OWN region (by “expropriating the expropriators”)..... is opportunism. (Above all, while it is formulated in “Marxist phraseology” à la Kautsky….)
I think that a self-declared “communist” or “revolutionary” organisation, “basing itself on Marxism” that is organising manifestations “against the imperialist war”, even for a “boycott of Israel” but AT THE SAME TIME mobilising and organise the workers only for a program of “radical” reforms is making at least a serious mistake of OPPORTUNISM.
And it is getting worse if that program of reforms is basing itself on the “use the free competition” between imperialist monopolies (of which Lenin analysed that “free competition is REPLACED by monopoly”):
“For a health service like in New Zealand (so-called Kiwi-model) using the free competition to organise a public tender for medical supplies”
or
“The communes had to found communal public energy enterprises so that they can use the free competition between the energy monopolies to buy the cheapest energy”
These are point out of the program of the Belgian “communist” and “revolutionary” party: the Workers Party of Belgium. (pvda.be, wpb.be, ptb.be)
Now I will start with my proposals of analyse of ACTUAL imperialism.(see next article) That has to result in a CONCRETE class-analysis and the strategy for REAL anti-imperialists. (Of course as a base of discussion)

---

[1]              J. Patouillet, L’impérialisme américain, Dijon, 1904, p. 272. —Lenin

[2]              Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, T. XIX, Lvr. II, p. 225. —Lenin

[3]              Kautsky, Nationalstaat, imperialistischer Staat und Staatenbund, Nürnberg, 1915, S. 72, 70. —Lenin

[4]              Finance Capital, p. 567. —Lenin

[5]              Out of “IX. CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM”, in “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - A POPULAR OUTLINE”, Written: January-June, 1916. First published in mid-1917 in pamphlet form, Petrograd. Published according to the manuscript and verified with the text of the pamphlet. Source: Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766. Transcription\Markup: Tim Delaney & Kevin Goins (2008) Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2005. You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.