XI. Revisionist Whitewashing: When the Category “Imperialism” has no Meaning (CWI / IMT / IST)

Let us move now to the Committee for a Workers International (CWI), whose dominant section is the Socialist Party in Britain. This organization is certainly one of those groups which throughout their whole history were struggling with theory in general and Marxist theory in particular. In the 1990s and the 2000s it was discussing if capitalism finally had been restored in China or if it is still a deformed workers state. While this issue seems to be solved by now, the CWI has no clear line on the question if Russia and China are imperialist or not.

On one hand, this or that national section occasionally publishes articles which designate these two Great Powers as imperialist. The Russian section of the CWI has characterized “its” state as “imperialist” on several occasions. Likewise, its comrades in Hong Kong have published recently an article with a correct assessment of China and its Belt and Road Initiative: “In reality, however, the BRI is an expression of the explosive emergence of China as a new global imperialist power vying with its older rivals, chiefly the US, to secure spheres of economic influence and control.” [1]

However, the CWI has rather a federalist approach on such theoretical issues. So the Russian or Chinese comrades are free to publish such characterizations if they like, but this has no meaning for the CWI as a whole. Such characterizations of Russia or Chinas an imperialist power by individual comrades or sections are not reflected in any way in the international theoretical and programmatic documents of the CWI and don’t influence their analysis of the world relations.

CWI: “Forgetting” about Russia’s or China’s Imperialist Character?

This becomes obvious when we look at the most comprehensive analytical documents of the CWI on the world situation of the last years. We are talking about the World Perspective documents which have been discussed and adopted either by the CWI World Congress or by its highest leadership body (the International Executive Committee or the International Secretariat). [2] In the five World Perspectives documents which the CWI has published since 2011, with a combined length of nearly 68,000 words, China is not characterized a single time as “imperialist”. And only one of those five documents talks twice about “imperialist interests” of Russia. (More on this below) At the same time, the CWI talks in these documents extensively about US and European imperialism.

This failure to understand the class character of the Great Powers which are dominating world capitalism is also reflected in the CWI’s analysis of flashpoints of the world situation. When Russia and the U.S. nearly clashed on Syria in April 2018, the relevant CWI article repeatedly attacked U.S. and Western imperialism by name, but failed to mention a single time that Russia is an imperialist power too! [3]

This fundamental failure to comprehend the class character of the Great Power dominating the world situation is accompanied by a superficial and confusing use of the category of “imperialist interests”. As mentioned above, the CWI occasionally talks about “imperialist interests” of Russia. However, this rather reflects their indifference to central categories of Marxist theory. They use such categories also for countries which are clearly no imperialist powers but rather semi-colonies. In their World Perspectives document adopted in December 2014, for example, the CWI speaks about the “regional imperialist reasons” of the Turkish president Erdoğan. [4]

Such confusion is not accidental but reflects the fundamental failure of the CWI throughout its history to understand Lenin’s theory of imperialism. As we have demonstrated in our book The Great Robbery of the South the CWI repeatedly confusingly applied the category of imperialism, usually in order to justify its opportunist adaption to social-imperialist forces. Hence, for example, the CWI suggested that Argentina would be a kind of imperialist state which, conveniently, helped their leadership to justify its capitulation to British imperialism during the Malvinas war in 1982. Likewise, they flirted with the idea of designating Iraq as imperialist in 1990/91 when the Western imperialist powers where assembling their forces to attack this Arab country. [5] Another example of the CWI’s adaption to social-imperialism is their support for the Zionist settler state Israel's right to exist. [6] Finally, in our opinion, the article on China mentioned above is mistaken to characterize India as “a rival Asian imperialist power”. [7]

IMT: A purely formal Recognition of Russia and China as Great Powers

The situation is similar with the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). If we take the central analytical and programmatic documents of this organization, we effectively get the same picture as with the CWI. The IMT has published three lengthy World Perspective documents since 2014 (plus an update) with a combined length of nearly 78,000 words. [8] Like their former comrades, the IMT talks incessantly about U.S. and European imperialism (like the CWI they tend to “forget” about Japan which is a result of their Europe-centeredness). But, again, not a single time do they characterize China or Russia as imperialist in these lengthy documents! This demonstrates that a formal recognition of Russia and China as Great Powers has no consequences for the IMT’s analysis of the world situation and the dynamic of the global contradictions. They are like those children who promise their mother to learn for school when admonished but never do so. An empty promise (to apply the Marxist analysis) without consequences.

The IMT’s failure to understand the class character of the Great Powers which are dominating world capitalism is reflected in its analysis of flashpoints of the world situation. When the civil war in the Ukraine escalated, the IMT supported the pro-Russian side. An article on the conflict in the Ukraine denounces repeatedly U.S. and European imperialism but mentions only once “Russian imperialist ambitions”. [9] This suggests that Russia would like to become an imperialist power (i.e. it is not such a power yet.)

Concerning China the IMT publications are confused. There exists one or another article which speaks explicitly about “Chinese Imperialism.” [10] Various other articles on China either do not characterize it as “imperialist” [11] or talk about “burgeoning Chinese imperialist aspirations.” [12] In several recently published articles on the looming Global Trade War, the IMT suggests that this reflects an inter-imperialist rivalry. [13] One article talks about China as a “rising, capitalist power.” [14] In summary, it is fascinating how difficult it is for the IMT, faced with such obvious expressions of inter-imperialist rivalry, to utter the simple truth that China has become an imperialist Great Power since about one decade!

SWP: Theoretical Indifference

When we come to the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the main force of the so-called International Socialist Tendency (IST), we see a similar picture. The main difference to the other centrist organizations mentioned in this chapter is that the SWP/IST is more open, more bold, in its explicit rejection of the Marxist theory of imperialism as it was developed and defended by Lenin and Trotsky. [15] However, the result is very similar. While the SWP/IST has published in its theoretical journals a number of articles on China in the recent period (including a whole special issue of its journal Socialist Review dedicated to China), not a single one of those characterizes China as imperialist. [16] The same is true for the SWP’s articles on the looming Global Trade War. [17] Likewise, a longer theoretical article on China published some years ago fails to characterize the Great Power as “imperialist”. [18]

There is a single exception as in one article, the SWP manages to speak out: „But for the moment at least the growing inter-imperialist rivalry between the two “giant ships”, the US and China, is being pursued by economic means.“ [19] However, while a grain of salt can improve the soup, a spoon of soup does not transform a pot of salt into a delicacy.

In summary, we see in the case of the SWP the same fundamental problem as with the other centrist organizations. They completely fail to recognize the basic changes in world politics which, however, is the prerequisite for Marxists to find the correct orientation.

As we will see below such confusion on the Marxist theory of imperialism is not accidental. Neither is it exclusively the result of its theoretical ignorance. Such theoretical confusion also conveniently serves to justify an arch-opportunist practice in failing to side with oppressed people attacked by imperialist powers or their local proxies.

We conclude this chapter by drawing attention to the important relationship of a correct analysis of the inter-imperialist rivalry and the resulting tactical platform. We have summarized this relationship in our 6 POINTS document:

“It is only possible to understand the driving dynamic of the present period of capitalist crisis and to take a correct position if one recognizes the imperialist character not only of the US, EU and Japan but also of the new emerging powers, Russia and China. Only on such a basis is it possible to arrive at the only correct, anti-imperialist program on this issue – proletarian internationalism and revolutionary defeatism, i.e., the perspective of consistent struggle of the working class independent of and against all imperialist powers. This means that revolutionaries refuse to lend support to any Great Power in inter-imperialist conflicts under the slogan ‘The main enemy is at home!’ (…) Those who fail to recognize the reactionary and imperialist character of these Great Powers will inevitable fail to take a consistent anti-imperialist, i.e. Marxist, line and will end up, consciously or unconsciously, supporting one or the other imperialist camp as a ‘lesser evil’”. ^[20]

Unfortunately, the leaderships of the centrist organizations with which we have dealt in the last chapters are far away from such a Marxist line!