Another reply to Claudio Katz on the actuality of the Marxist imperialism theory

 

An Essay (with 5 Tables) by Michael Pröbsting, 16 November 2024, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction

 

A summary of Katz’s view of the U.S.-led Empire

 

The “Empire” – an un-Marxist myth hovering over the contradictions between classes and states

 

Turning Lenin on its head: Katz’s idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy

 

Are the BRICS+ in a position to challenge the “Empire”?

 

Why have there been no wars between imperialist powers since 1945?

 

Did Lenin’s program of anti-imperialism only fit for revolutionary situations?

 

U.S.-led “Empire” and Russian Tsarism – a wrong analogy

 

Staying neutral or siding with reaction in important popular struggles?

 

The program of one-eyed anti-imperialism

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

In the last few years, there has been a notable increase in the debate among Marxists about imperialism theory. As part of this discussion there is an ongoing exchange between the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz and me in the last one-and-a-half years which has been published in a number of languages. [1]

 

A few weeks ago, Katz, one of the most well-known progressive economists in Latin America, published another contribution to this debate in which he outlines both his analysis of contemporary imperialism as well as some strategies for resistance. Basically, his essay is divided into three parts. While the first part is a positive outline of his views, the second part is a critique of the Leninist position – mostly directed against my first and second reply to him. The third part is a polemic mainly directed against the ideas of Rolando Astarita – also an economist from Argentina who wrongly believes that national oppression and imperialist super-exploitation have lost their relevance. ^[2]

 

As this is now my third reply, I will therefore refrain as much as possible from repeating those arguments which I have already elaborated in detail in previous contributions. I shall rather focus on some selected theoretical issues which I consider as particularly important as well as on questions of anti-imperialist strategy.

 

 

 

A summary of Katz’s view of the U.S.-led Empire

 

 

 

Basically, the Argentinean economist claims that capitalism is no longer characterised by contradictions between imperialist powers but rather by domination of a single (U.S.-led) “Empire”. In contrast, I defend the analysis elaborated by Lenin according to which the capitalist world continues to be characterised by inter-imperialist rivalry which currently finds its expression to a special degree in the tensions between Western and Eastern Great Powers (U.S., Western Europe and Japan versus China and Russia).

 

Unsurprisingly, Katz continues to uphold his thesis of the “Empire” and, by and large, repeats his arguments outlined in previous contributions. Likewise unsurprisingly, I also continue to consider his “Empire” theory as flawed. This does not mean that I disagree with all his arguments. I agree basically with his critique of Astarita’s theses. And as a Marxist anti-imperialist, I fully share his opposition against Western imperialism and take the side of the oppressed peoples which resist. I do so not only in words but also in deeds. As a political activist, I am a regular participant and speaker at protest demonstrations against the Zionist genocide in Gaza. This year, I had two trials because of my unambiguous support for the armed resistance of the Palestinian people which ended with a guilty verdict and a suspended prison sentence of six months. [3]

 

My disagreements with Katz are rooted in that fact that he is only a one-sided anti-imperialist. For him, “the main enemy … is the American leadership of the imperial system” and he explicitly refuses to recognize the imperialist character of Russia and China. Consequently, he is only an anti-imperialist against the U.S. and its allies but not against other imperialist powers like Russia and China. Hence, he fails to support the struggles of oppressed peoples against these Eastern Great Powers respectively their local allies.

 

Katz claims that his concept is based on Lenin’s theory but takes into account “two great changes” which happened “during the second half of the 20th century.” “On one hand, a bloc of countries was formed which divorced from the capitalist market (the so-called socialist camp), and on the other hand, the transformation of classical imperialism into an imperial system was consummated.”

 

According to the Argentinean economist, “the imperial system modified the militarist rivalry between the main colossi of capitalism. The bloody confrontations between France and Germany or Japan and the United States were replaced by an apparatus commanded by the Pentagon that protects the powerful. The American giant acts as the center of a stratified and pyramidal mechanism, which articulates different types of relations between the first power and its partners. This configuration operates with norms of belonging, coexistence and exclusion, which define the role of each region in global geopolitics.”

 

While our critic recognises that Russia and China have risen as new powers, he denies not only Russia’s imperialist character but even that China has become a capitalist country.

 

“In the 21st century, this adaptation of the Leninist approach faces another context. The implosion of the USSR was followed by the disappearance of the so-called socialist camp and the consolidation of capitalism in Russia, which led to the new centrality of a harassing and harassed power. Moscow is harassed by NATO and implements external incursions in its radius of influence. For this reason, it acts as a non-hegemonic empire in the making. It develops its priorities in conflict with the imperial system, but with actions that guarantee by force the primacy of its interests.

 

China has been placed, like Russia, outside the imperial system and endures the same aggressions from the Pentagon. But unlike its Eurasian counterpart, it has not completed the capitalist restoration and has so far avoided all the misdeeds of an imperialist power. It does not send troops abroad, avoids involvement in military conflicts and maintains great geopolitical prudence. With this defensive strategy it reinforces its relations of economic domination with the bulk of the periphery.”

 

 

 

The “Empire” – an un-Marxist myth hovering over the contradictions between classes and states

 

 

 

As I said before, I do not intend to repeat all my arguments. I have shown in my previous replies to Katz as well in other works that China has already become capitalist three decades ago. Any concrete analysis of China’s economy shows that its corporations (including the state-owned enterprises) operate according to the capitalist law of value, make profit, etc. and I have provided numerous facts and statistics to proof this thesis. In contrast, Katz exercises unfortunately much restraint in providing any concrete evidence for his theses. [4]

 

Likewise, Katz limits his response to my analysis of Russian imperialism to state that since Moscow is in confrontation with the “Empire”, it can not be imperialist. It is merely a “non-hegemonic empire in the making. It develops its priorities in conflict with the imperial system, but with actions that guarantee by force the primacy of its interests.” For him, being imperialist and not being part of the U.S.-led “Empire” is a contradictio in adiecto. [5]

 

It is, by the way, a general feature of Katz’s works on imperialism that he limits his arguments mostly to the sphere of the doctrinaire generalities of structuralism – an unfortunate export hit of “Marxist” academics from French universities who view history as a process without subjects. As Lenin once noted, this theory is a “narrow objectivism (…) that describes the process in general, and not each of the antagonistic classes whose conflict makes up the process.“ ^[6] Consequently, structuralism – and Katz’s works bears its earmarks – get along pretty fine without facts and a concrete analysis of reality.

 

I shall therefore focus on dealing with the theoretical fundament of Katz’s thesis of the U.S.-led “Empire”. He claims to have elaborated Lenin’s theory of imperialism according to the changes of capitalism since World War II. However, as we will show, he is rather liquidating Lenin’s theory and turns the Marxist method on its head.

 

Marx and Engels started their analysis of world politics from the contradictions between the classes and nations, between states and powers. Consequently, the Bolshevik theoreticians viewed imperialism as a contradictory global system based on the antagonism between the classes, nations, and states. They assessed the political and economic strength of individual powers and their relations with each other and derived from this a characterisation of the world situation.

 

Hence, we consider modern capitalism as characterised by several lines of fundamental contradictions which are, of course, closely intertwined: [7]

 

i) the antagonism between the classes,

 

ii) the antagonism between oppressor and oppressed nations,

 

iii) the antagonism between imperialist powers and semi-colonial countries,

 

iv) the antagonism between states in general and imperialist powers in particular.

 

Katz has a completely different approach. He starts with the dogma of the U.S.-led “Empire”, without any concrete analysis, and derives his assessment of individual states and popular movements in various countries from their respective position towards such “Empire”.

 

Lenin considered imperialism as a system which arises from the economic fundament of capitalism and its class contradictions. Imperialism, including any “Empire” was not something detached from the economic basis. Hence, when the Bolsheviks discussed a new program in 1917-19, Lenin strongly opposed the proposal of Bukharin and Pyatakov – against whom Lenin had to polemicise repeatedly because they advocated “imperialist economism” (Katz himself refers to this in his above-mentioned reply to Rolando Astarita) – to delete without substitution that part of old program which deals with the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. ^[8]

 

Lenin once noted, in his conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic: “Thought proceeding from the concrete to the abstract – provided it is correct (…) – does not get away from the truth but comes closer to it.“ ^[9] But Katz does the opposite – he starts with an abstract dogma and subordinates the classes and nations, their contradictions and struggles under such dogma. This makes his whole scheme pretty un-materialistic, idealist, i.e. un-Marxist.

 

If Russia intervenes with its troops in other countries in order to expand its influence, to put down popular rebellions or to keep an allied dictatorship in power (e.g. Chechnya, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Syria, Libya, Mali, etc.), it is not imperialist because … Moscow is not part of the U.S.-led “Empire”.

 

If China develops economic and financial relationships with semi-colonial countries which result in extracting surplus-value from local workers and peasants, it does not constitute imperialist super-exploitation because … Beijing is not part of the U.S.-led “Empire”.

 

Hence, Katz has a very opposing view to Lenin. He starts with the top of the political superstructure – the supposed U.S.-led “Empire” – and subordinates all struggles between classes and states to this single feature. It is not the relationship between the classes and nations which counts for Katz but rather the relationship of the classes and nations around the globe to the U.S.-led “Empire”. As a result, he creates an un-Marxist myth which is hovering over the contradictions between classes and states.

 

By this, Katz replaces Lenin’s concept of imperialism as a political-economic analysis with a purely political and one-sided theory which is consequently without any materialist dialectic.

 

 

 

Turning Lenin on its head: Katz’s idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy

 

 

 

It is well known that the Marxist theory of imperialism – as it was elaborated by Lenin, Bukharin, Luxemburg, and Hilferding in the early 20^th century – was based on the economic analysis of capitalism. They identified monopolization – the process of the formation of monopolies in the industrial and financial sector – as the economic fundament of imperialism. Lenin stressed this point repeatedly: “Here we have what is most essential in the theoretical appraisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism, namely, that capitalism becomes monopoly capitalism.“ ^[10]

 

The formation of imperialist powers – some long-time Great Powers (like Britain, France or Russia), other newly emerging (e.g. Germany, U.S., Japan) – inevitably took place in relation to this economic process of monopolization. Hence, „…an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony…“ ^[11]

 

The leader of the Bolshevik party famously summarised the characteristics of the imperialistic epoch as follows: „We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts – the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks – three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves – until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed.“ ^[12]

 

Katz ignores the economic process of monopolization in the world economy. The fact that China has as many corporations and billionaires as the U.S., that Russia’s economy is dominated by domestic monopolies which also export capital to a number of other countries – all this is irrelevant for our critic.

 

How does he justify such ignoring? By reformulating the Marxist theory of imperialism. He eliminates the economy from his analysis of imperialism and limits it to aggressive and militarist foreign policy. As we did already point out in our previous replies, this is a key aspect of Katz’s theory of imperialism which is also pretty evident in his latest essay.

 

Such he writes for example: “The place of these powers (China and Russia, Ed.) in the world economy does not clarify their role as an empire. This role is elucidated by evaluating their foreign policy, their foreign intervention and their geopolitical-military actions on the global stage. This record allows us to update Lenin's view, avoiding the repetition of his diagnoses, in a radically different context from that prevailing at the beginning of the last century.”

 

Likewise, while he is forced to admit China’s economic strength on the world market, he claims that this does not make it an imperialist power. “But this view ignores the basic difference that distinguishes an imperial enemy from an economic dominator. The United States exercises oppression in all areas, while its rival profits from the benefits of unequal exchange, the transfer of value and the capture of rents. These two adversities are not equivalent for Latin America because the first makes any sovereign action impossible and the second obstructs development. They operate, therefore, as limitations of different magnitude.”

 

So, for Katz, an “economic dominator” (like China) which exploits other countries, is not necessarily an imperialist power. Such a view is consistent with Katz divorce of politics and economy but completely inconsistent with any claim to adhere to the Marxist theory of imperialism! Lenin strongly denounced such an approach which was characteristic for Katz’s ideological progenitor, Karl Kautsky.

 

”Advancing this definition of imperialism brings us into complete contradiction to K. Kautsky, who refuses to regard imperialism as a “phase of capitalism” and defines it as a policy “preferred” by finance capital, a tendency of “industrial” countries to annex “agrarian” countries. Kautsky’s definition is thoroughly false from the theoretical standpoint. What distinguishes imperialism is the rule not of industrial capital, but of finance capital, the striving to annex not agrarian countries, particularly, but every kind of country. Kautsky divorces imperialist politics from imperialist economics, he divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics in order to pave the way for his vulgar bourgeois reformism, such as “disarmament”, “ultra-imperialism” and similar nonsense. The whole purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to obscure the most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the theory of “unity” with the apologists of imperialism, the outright social-chauvinists and opportunists.“ ^[13]

 

Katz considers China not as imperialist because it does not wage wars in other countries (yet). But military aggression is only one form of imperialist policy, “peaceful” penetration and economic dependency is another – one which even plays a much larger role. In fact, military intervention has been rather the exception in imperialist foreign policy in the past decades and took place only in a few countries. In contrast, economic penetration and dependency by imperialist monopolies takes place every single day. This is even more the case since one of the important changes in the imperialist system has been the process of de-colonialisation which transformed nearly all colonies (Africa, large parts of Asia, Eastern Europe) into capitalist semi-colonies. With the disappearance of colonies, the need for regular military interventions and permanent deployment of troops to upheld occupation also diminished. For all these reasons, China’s methods of “indirect”, economic subjugation of peoples in the South via financial means is a typical instrument for 21^st century imperialism.

 

Lenin description of this process sounds pretty actual when it comes to the relationship between Western powers as well as China with semi-colonial countries. ”Economically, imperialism is monopoly capitalism. To acquire full monopoly, all competition must be eliminated, and not only on the home market (of the given state), but also on foreign markets, in the whole world. Is it economically possible, “in the era of finance capital”, to eliminate competition even in a foreign state? Certainly it is. It is done through a rival’s financial dependence and acquisition of his sources of raw materials and eventually of all his enterprises. “ ^[14]

 

Basically, Katz advocates an idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy, leaving out the economy – the material basis of capitalism. Hence, it is only consistent with such a reinterpretation of imperialism that Katz does not consider imperialism as a specific stage of capitalist development – its age of monopolization – but rather as aggressive foreign policy which has always existed in capitalism. In his view “imperialism (…) has been present since the beginning of capitalism.“

 

 

 

Are the BRICS+ in a position to challenge the “Empire”?

 

 

 

We did show in previous replies to Katz, that the idea of a U.S.-led “Empire” which would dominate the world does not correspond to the reality of capitalism in the 21^st century. There is no need to reproduce our arguments and figures again. However, it makes sense to briefly deal with developments since I published my last reply to the Argentinean economist.

 

In the last two years, there have been not only two big wars – in Gaza and Ukraine – but also a substantial expansion of BRICS, the alliance led by China and Russia. At the beginning of 2024, four states – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and United Arab Emirates – formally joined the five original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). One country, Saudi Arabia, has been invited to join but has still not decided on this. And in October 2024, 13 other states became so-called “partner countries” (Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Türkiye, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam).

 

Sure, this alliance is not a homogenous and centralized bloc. Several states have conflicts among each other, some have more and other less close relations with Western powers. However, Modi and Putin are certainly not mistaken in saying that BRICS “is not an anti-western group, it is a non-western group." However, despite such formal claims, the Eastern-dominated alliance is objectively the by far strongest political, economic and military rival for the Western powers and is seen by them as such. ^[15]

 

And indeed, they have reasons to fear the BRICS+ alliance. Most importantly, China has become the largest or second largest power in terms of economic output, industrial production, and trade. Russia and China are the second and third-largest military powers. And albeit the alliance is not a monolithic bloc, the very fact that dozens of countries have shown interest in joining it demonstrates the two Eastern powers are massively expanding their spheres of influence.

 

There is a significant difference in calculating the size of the two blocks, depending on the measures of calculation. Nominal GDP is measured in US-Dollar with market-rate currency conversion, while the PPP-adjusted GDP uses international dollars (using the U.S. as a base country for calculations) which better account for cost of living and inflation. In nominal terms, the G7 – the Western imperialist alliance – has still a larger economic output while calculated in PPP terms, BRICS+ has already surpassed the Western powers. Note that the figures in both Tables below are for the original 5 member states of BRICS+, i.e. before the alliances have expanded by 4 additional member states and 13 partner countries. (See Table 1)

 

 

 

Table 1. Nominal GDP and PPP GDP of G7 and BRICS (original 5 States) in trillion US-Dollar, 2023 [16]

 

                                          G7                                                                                              BRICS

 

      Nominal GDP     PPP GDP                                                        Nominal GDP     PPP GDP

 

U.S.                     26.9                     26.9                                     China                 19.4                       33.0

 

Japan                   4.4                       6.5                                       India                   3.7                         13.0

 

Germany            4.3                       5.6                                      Brazil                  2.1                          4.0

 

UK                        3.2                       3.9                                        Russia                2.1                          5.0

 

France                2.9                       3.9                                       South Africa      0.4                          1.0

 

Italy                     2.2                       3.2

 

Canada               2.1                       2.4

 

G7 Total              46.0                     52.4                                    BRICS Total       27.7                            56.0

 

 

 

In any case, there is no doubt that the BRICS states have much higher growth rates and are in process of catching up or even surpassing the “old” imperialists. (See Table 2)

 

 

 

Table 2. Share of G7 and BRICS (original 5 States) in Global GDP, 1992-2022 (PPP-adjusted) [17]

 

                            1992                    2002                    2012                    2022

 

BRICS                 16.45%                19.34%                28.28%                31.67%

 

G7                       45.80%                42.34%                32.82%                30.31%

 

 

 

BRICS growing clout is evident by various other indicators. When it expanded in 2023 to nine member states, it had a combined population of about 3.5 billion, or 45% of the world’s people. As for energy sources, the BRICS+ members own 47% of the world's oil reserves and 50% of its natural gas reserves. [18] As of 2024, the BRICS, along with their new members, control approximately 72% of the world's rare earth metal reserves. ^[19]

 

It is not without interest to make a historical comparison to the relation of forces between the blocs of imperialist powers at the onset of World War I and II. In the three tables below we can see that the two rivalling alliances were not equal in terms of economic output but that the Western-led imperialist bloc were clearly stronger. Before the beginning of World War I, the Entente powers had a combined output of more than four times than that of the Germany-led bloc. (See Table 3). We are aware that the list of countries in this table is not complete as Japan, which briefly joined the Entente, as well as the Ottoman Empire, which sided with Germany, are missing. However, bother were rather small powers in terms of economic output so they would not alter significantly the total relation of forces between the blocs.

 

 

 

Table 3. GDP of Imperialist Powers, 1913 (million 1990 international $) ^[20]

 

Entente                                                                        Central Powers

 

UK                      224,618                                           Germany           237,332

 

France                144,489                                           Austria               23,451

 

USA                    517,383

 

Russia                 232,351

 

Italy                    95,487

 

Total                    1,214,338                                                                    260,783

 

                            (696,955 without the U.S.

 

        which joined the war

 

       only in April 1917)

 

 

 

We see a similar picture before the beginning of World War II. The Western powers (which were joined by the USSR in 1941) were two or three times as strong as the Axis Powers. (See Table 4 and 5)

 

 

 

Table 4. Imperialist Powers’ Share of World Manufacturing Output in 1938 ^[21]

 

Axis Powers                                                                Western Powers

 

Germany                          12.7%                                Britain                              10.7%

 

Italy                                    2.8%                                  France                              4.4%

 

                        United States                  31.4%

 

Total                                   15.5%                                                                           46.5%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Gross National Product of Major Powers Participating in WWII in 1939 ^[22]

 

(US-Dollars, values of constant price on a 1990 basis)

 

       Axis Powers                                                                 Allies

 

Germany                            384                                     US                                     869

 

Japan                                   165                                     UK                                    287

 

Austria                                  27                                     France                              199

 

Italy                                      151                                     USSR                                366

 

Total of the Axis Powers    727                                     Total of the Allies              1,721 (1,355 without USSR)

 

 

 

This overview of the relation of forces between the U.S.-led bloc and the China/Russia-led bloc demonstrates that the so-called “Empire” is clearly no longer in a position to dominate the world. True, its military – in terms of foreign basis and expenditures – is much larger than that of its rivals. However, reality has shown in the past two decades that America’s decline takes place not only in economic but also in political-military terms. Think about Washington’s defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about its failure to seriously damage Russia’s economy despite the Western unprecedented regime of sanctions after Putin attacked Ukraine in February 2022. Think about the embarrassing isolation of the U.S. and Israel in the UN General Assembly on the issue of Palestine.

 

The fact that China and Russia have succeeded to create an alliance, which encompasses half of humanity and a significant part of the world economy, demonstrates that the U.S.-led “Empire” is far away from imposing its will on the world.

 

Furthermore, as our historical analogies with the situations before World War I and II show, it is absolutely wrong to conclude from the superiority of one imperialist camp against its rivals would mean that the latter are not be imperialist. I am sure, Claudio Katz will agree that the Germany-led camp was imperialist both in World War I as well as II.

 

 

 

Why have there been no wars between imperialist powers since 1945?

 

 

 

Katz challenges my critique of his Empire-thesis by asking why the U.S.-led bloc with Western Europe and Japan existed for so long without significant inner tensions. He writes that I would “ignore the monumental changes that separate the classic era of imperialism from the postwar period and the 21^st century. The first period was marked by wars between empires and in the second such conflagrations have not taken place. (…) The current system with total primacy of the United States over Europe and Japan has eliminated the possibility of wars between these components of the triad. This fact introduces a qualitative shift in the dynamics of imperialism.“

 

Hence, he elaborates, “there is intense competition between German and Japanese companies and their American counterparts, but the Pentagon keeps its sights set on Moscow or Beijing and does not worry about Berlin or Tokyo. (…) What explains why this German-Japanese development – much more intense than Russia and longer-standing than China – did not lead to military tensions with the first power (the U.S., Ed), is the integration of the two allies of the West in NATO, that is, their membership in the imperial system.”

 

In fact, the long-lasting collaboration between the U.S. and its Western allies is not based on a supposed qualitative transformation of imperialism but on concrete and temporary historical conditions. The hegemonic role of the U.S. within the capitalist world was the result of the outcome of World War II where other imperialist powers were either defeated (Germany and Japan) or became allies in a subordinated position (Britain and France). Washington’s domination was reinforced by the fact that all imperialist states had no alternative but to accept U.S. leadership in order to wage their Cold War against the Stalinist states. Hence, the inter-imperialist rivalry was overdetermined by another contradiction – that between Western powers and the USSR-led camp of Stalinist states.

 

As an aside, I would like to note that the term “so-called socialist camp” only strengthens the impression that Claudio Katz has a soft spot for Russian respectively Chinese imperialism. Especially when taking such a position as he does, it is more than necessary to at least criticize sharply and repeatedly the Stalinist misconceptions of socialism (let’s not forget that China is still ruled by a self-proclaimed “Communist Party”). Marxists should be clear in their intention and terminology. First, it was not “socialist” as these were degenerated post-capitalist workers states dominated by the dictatorship of Stalinist bureaucracies. [23] Second, these states were not united, particularly after China under Mao Tse-tung aligned itself with U.S. imperialism against the USSR after Nixon’s famous visit in 1972. From that time on, “socialist” China had effectively joined the imperialist camp against “socialist” USSR.

 

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. became the absolute hegemon of the world for a short period until its domination declined in the 2000s. The Great Recession in 2008 was a turning point because from then on not only Russia but also China emerged as new imperialist powers. Since then, a new inter-imperialist rivalry overdetermined, so to say, the old rivalry between the Western powers.

 

Katz claims that the Pentagon simply controls the “Empire” and subjugates other Western Powers. I argue that because of specific historic conditions, these Western Powers pursued their respective imperialist interests by aligning themselves with Washington. But this did not result in the creation of an integrated “Empire” under the single command of the Pentagon. It rather resulted in the creation of an alliance of imperialist states, among which the U.S. is the strongest. This alliance is currently held together by the rise of the imperialist rivals of the East.

 

However, this does not mean that the tensions between the Western imperialist powers would have disappeared (into the creation of a monolithic U.S.-led Empire). We did already see open tensions during the first term of U.S. President Trump and we will most likely see more of these during his incoming second term. Will the result in open war between these Western powers? Certainly not in the foreseeable future. However, it is far from guaranteed that the European Union will remain closely allied with Washington. Likewise, it is open if it will continue to exist in its present composition or if it will rather split with one camp staying with the U.S. and another taking an independent position.

 

However, all this is not decisive for our discussion. Our main argument against Katz’s thesis of an U.S.-led Empire is that the world situation is marked by the existence of several imperialist Great Powers of which some are in accelerating rivalry against each other and others are in alliance. This has been the case since the end of the first decade of the 21^st century and it will stay like this for the coming period. Furthermore, given the decline of the capitalist system as a whole, the contradictions between these imperialist powers will inevitably accelerate and put the danger of World War III on the agenda. [24]

 

 

 

Did Lenin’s program of anti-imperialism only fit for revolutionary situations?

 

 

 

Katz claims that Lenin’s policy of defeatism against all imperialist powers would have been a program which applied only for revolutionary situations. Since such a situation does not exist today, Lenin’s anti-imperialist program would no longer apply. “Lenin based his anti-imperialist strategy on three diagnoses: terminal crisis of capitalism, intense generalization of wars between the main powers and imminence of the socialist revolution. All the orientations that he proposed of rejection of the war conflagration through defeatism and the creation of anti-imperialist fronts in the periphery, were based on that evaluation.”

 

“Our critics (….) repeat the Bolshevik leader's revolutionary strategy of defeatism, which emphasized the shared guilt of all the powers in the war. But they omit that this characterization was framed in the context of imminent socialist revolution, absent today.”

 

But Lenin’s program was not based on a conjunctural assessment which would not apply in a non-revolutionary situation. It was rather rooted in the character of the whole epoch of capitalism in its last stage. He differentiated between the epochs of the 19^th century – the epoch of rising capitalism – and the epoch of monopoly capitalism which had opened at the beginning of the 20^th century. In the former epochs it was legitimate for socialists to side with one power against another, but this was no longer the case for the imperialist epoch.

 

In a polemic against A. Potresov, a reformist Menshevik in Russia, who justified the defence of the imperialist fatherland by referring to Marx taking the side of a European power against another in 19^th-century wars, Lenin emphasised the fundamental difference between the epoch of rising capitalism and the epoch of imperialism.

 

”In 1859, it was not imperialism that comprised the objective content of the historical process in continental Europe, but national-bourgeois movements for liberation. The mainspring was the movement of the bourgeoisie against the feudal and absolutist forces. Fifty-five years later, when the place of the old and reactionary feudal lords has been taken by the not unsimilar finance capital tycoons of the decrepit bourgeoisie, the knowledgeable Potresov is out to appraise international conflicts from the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, not of the new class. (…) Let us suppose that two countries are at war in the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which country should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day democracy? Obviously, to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its development more speedy, and undermine feudalism the more decisively. Let us further suppose that the determining feature of the objective historical situation has changed, and that the place of capital striving for national liberation has been taken by international, reactionary and imperialist finance capital. The former country, let us say, possesses three-fourths of Africa, whereas the latter possesses one-fourth. A repartition of Africa is the objective content of their war. To which side should we wish success? It would be absurd to state the problem in its previous form, since we do not possess the old criteria of appraisal: there is neither a bourgeois liberation movement running into decades, nor a long process of the decay of feudalism. It is not the business of present-day democracy either to help the former country to assert its “right” to three-fourths of Africa, or to help the latter country (even if it is developing economically more rapidly than the former) to take over those three-fourths.“ ^[25]

 

Hence, we see that the Marxists based their intransigent opposition against all Great Powers not on the hope of an “imminent socialist revolution” but on their fundamental assessment of the epoch of imperialism in which the bourgeoisie in all imperialist states had assumed a reactionary character.

 

 

 

U.S.-led “Empire” and Russian Tsarism – a wrong analogy

 

 

 

Katz’s misinterpretation of Lenin’s reasoning for his defeatist program goes hand in hand with his repeated reference to Marx’s strategy in the 1848 revolution and thereafter in which he identified Tsarist Russia – the strongest remaining bastion of feudalism – as the main enemy. Such Katz writes for example: “The American colossus currently occupies a place similar to that of old Tsarist Russia, as a political bastion of world reaction.”

 

“Our approach precisely highlights the current similarities with the 19th century due to the centrality of the main enemy. The place that Russia had in Marx's time is currently occupied by the United States. Critics accept the validity of this location two centuries ago, but do not endorse it for the current context. They consider that Lenin's theses erected an irreversible border between both stages.”

 

I did already show in my second reply that such an analogy is fundamentally wrong. (See chapter “Political consequences: Back to Marx’s strategy of the 19th century of the “main enemy”?”) However, since Katz repeats this analogy several times in his new essay, I feel obliged to add some arguments.

 

Katz’s analogy is inappropriate not only because we don’t live in a U.S.-dominated unipolar world and not only because it is rather the dictatorships of Putin and Xi which resemble the Tsarist autocracy in Russia more than the U.S. This analogy is also mistaken because it is deeply unhistoric as it is based on turning back the wheels of time. It applies an approach to states and wars which was justified in the epoch of transition of feudalism to capitalism in the 19^th century to the current epoch of decaying capitalism.

 

As we did already show in the previous chapter, the Bolsheviks rejected such an approach which violates the laws of historic materialism. In the epoch of transition from feudalism to capitalism, i.e. of rising capitalism, the bourgeoisie could play a progressive role in the struggle against the old order of the Middle Ages. In the current epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, this is no longer the case. In this period, the bourgeoisie of imperialist powers plays a reactionary role without exception.

 

In fact, Katz’s reference to the foreign policy of Marx and Engels in the 19^th century and their focus on the struggle against Russia was also used by social-chauvinists in various countries during World War I – from Kautsky, Cunov to Plekhanov and Axelrod – in order to justify their defence of the imperialist fatherland.

 

Lenin strongly rejected such an analogy because it would apply the program of a bygone era to wars in the imperialist epoch. He stressed that socialists have to oppose all Great Powers, irrespective if they are stronger or weaker, older or younger.

 

„Let us suppose that two countries are at war in the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which country should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day democracy? (As this article was written for a legal publication in Tsarist Russia, the Bolsheviks often used the synonym “present-day democracy” for “socialist proletariat”, Ed.) Obviously, to that country whose success will give a greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its development more speedy, and undermine feudalism the more decisively. Let us further suppose that the determining feature of the objective historical situation has changed, and that the place of capital striving for national liberation has been taken by international, reactionary and imperialist finance capital. The former country, let us say, possesses three-fourths of Africa, whereas the latter possesses one-fourth. A repartition of Africa is the objective content of their war. To which side should we wish success? It would be absurd to state the problem in its previous form, since we do not possess the old criteria of appraisal: there is neither a bourgeois liberation movement running into decades, nor a long process of the decay of feudalism. It is not the business of present-day democracy either to help the former country to assert its “right” to three-fourths of Africa, or to help the latter country (even if it is developing economically more rapidly than the former) to take over those three-fourths.“ ^[26]

 

Katz wants to transmit unhistorical the legitimate tactics of the struggle against feudalism – of which Tsarist Russia constituted the most powerful force in the time of Marx and Engels – to the imperialist epoch in which all Great Powers play a reactionary role.

 

“… the general feature of the epoch, however, was the progressiveness of the bourgeoisie, i.e., its unresolved and uncompleted struggle against feudalism. It was perfectly natural for the elements of present-day democracy, and for Marx as their representative, to have been guided at the time by the unquestionable principle of support for the progressive bourgeoisie (i.e., capable of waging a struggle) against feudalism, and for them to be dealing with the problem as to “the success of which side”, i.e., of which bourgeoisie, was more desirable.“ ^[27]

 

Gregory Zinoviev, Lenin’s closest collaborator for a long time, pushed the same argument in his book “The War and the Crisis in Socialism” which was written in 1915/16: “In the epoch when the question of the conquest of power by the bourgeoisie, the victory of the bourgeoisie over the remnants of feudalism, was on the agenda, Marx and Engels during the wars advocated the victory of this or that bourgeoisie, depending on which victory was most favorable for democracy and socialism.“ ^[28]

 

We can formulate our methodological objection against Katz also from a different angle: the Argentinean economist advocates a model (fighting only against a single “main enemy” among the Great Powers) which was legitimate in an epoch of rapidly growing productive forces and in which the decisive task was to break down the narrow barriers of feudalism and to fight against forces which could endanger such historic progress. But such a model is inapplicable for an epoch of stagnating productive forces, climate catastrophe, economic depression and war danger. In such an epoch all imperialist bourgeoisies can only be reactionary and obstacles for the progress of humanity.

 

„The present war is imperialist in character. This war is the outcome of conditions in an epoch in which capitalism has reached the highest stage in its development; in which the greatest significance attaches, not only to the export of commodities, but also to the export of capital; an epoch in which the cartelisation of production and the internationalization of economic life have assumed impressive proportions, colonial policies have brought about the almost complete partition of the globe, world capitalism’s productive forces have outgrown the limited boundaries of national and state divisions, and the objective conditions are perfectly ripe for socialism to be achieved.“ ^[29]

 

For all these reasons, Katz’s attempt to turn back the wheels of time and to advocate tactics in the struggle against feudalism for the epoch of struggle against imperialism are a gross violation of historical materialism. Politically, it represents a distortion of Marxism into an ideology of collaboration with Chinese and Russian imperialism.

 

 

 

Staying neutral or siding with reaction in important popular struggles?

 

 

 

Our differences with Claudio Katz are not limited to the sphere of analysis and theory as they have profound consequences for socialist strategy and practical intervention in the class struggle. Since Katz knows only one enemy – the U.S.-led “Empire” – he characterises wars of national defence and popular rebellions by only one criterion: are they directed against Washington and its allies or against the rivals of the “Empire”. While he advocates support for the former type of struggles, he refrains from supporting the latter or even sharply denounces these.

 

This is evident from various statements in his essay. While he does not endorse Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, he certainly does not side with the people under attack. He does not defend Ukraine because he views it merely as a proxy of the U.S.-led “Empire”. “The United States was also the promotor of the war in Ukraine. It tried to add Kyiv to the NATO missile network surrounding Russia, in order to affect its rival's defensive structure. With this objective, it promoted the Maidan revolt, encouraged nationalism against Moscow and supported the mini-war in Donbass. It sought to trap its adversary in a conflict aimed at imposing the rearmament agenda on Europe.” It seems that Katz does not know about the long-time national oppression of Ukraine by Great Russian imperialism, about Russian monopolies, about Ukraine’s desire for independence, etc. All this is foreign to Katz because he does not recognise “smaller people” – we put this in inverted comma since Ukraine’s population has more or less the same size as Argentina’s – as political subjects. For him, they can only be proxies of Great Powers. This is even more the case if such “smaller people” fight against oppression by rivals of the U.S.-led “Empire”.

 

“The Pentagon is the main promoter, responsible for and cause of the greatest tragedies of recent decades. The United States carried out a harrowing intervention in the Greater Middle East to control oil, crush rebellions and subdue rivals. From there, it commanded the bloodshed of the Arab Spring, facilitated jihadist terrorism and perpetrated the demolition of four states (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria). (…) The destruction of Yugoslavia, the fracture of African countries and the appearance of mini-States controlled by NATO illustrate this regression.”

 

As a matter of fact, the Great Arab Revolution was directed against all kind of capitalist dictatorships – those aligned against the U.S. (e.g. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen) as well as those aligned with Russia and China (e.g. Libya and Syria). This was first and foremost a spontaneous democratic revolution which was often slaughtered by reactionary tyrannies with support from U.S. as well as Russian imperialism (e.g. Egypt and Bahrain resp. Syria). The U.S. intervened militarily much shorter and more limited in Libya in 2011 than Russia did in Syria since 2015. And Washington’s intervention in East Syria to defeat Daesh did not contribute in any way to the liberation struggle against Assad.

 

As we did already show in our previous reply, the formulation “destruction of Yugoslavia” reflects Katz’s opposition against the struggle of the non-Serbian people for national self-determination (which is why he shamefully characterized the “ghostly (!) republic of Kosova” as an “old Serbian province”!) And I assume that his protest against the “fracture of African countries” reflects that he denies that there exists national and ethnical oppression in various states on the Black continent against which people rise up. We can not refrain from commenting that such adaption to chauvinism against popular liberation struggles usually reflects an ideological mindset which is typical for supporters of pro-Russian social-imperialism.

 

 

 

The program of one-eyed anti-imperialism

 

 

 

Essentially, Katz advocates a program which we can not but characterize as one-eyed anti-imperialism. Since there is only one “main enemy” – the U.S.-led “Empire” – all other Great Powers are at least lesser evils. We are fully aware that Katz is critical of Putin’s foreign policy. And, likewise, he recognises that China’s foreign investments and loans aim not for the betterment of humanity but for higher profits for its monopolies. But since Russia is supposedly forced to defend itself against NATO expansion and “China avoids imperial arrogance”, these Eastern powers are the lesser evil.

 

Hence, Katz wants to focus the anti-imperialist struggle only against the U.S.-led “Empire”. He criticises the program which we advocate for an “erroneous identification of anti-imperialism with a policy of indiscriminate opposition to all the great powers. This view leads to simplified reactions, ignoring that current imperialism forms a system of aggression under the command of Washington. Only the recording of this fact allows us to conceive an anti-imperialist strategy adapted to the 21st century.” It is therefore only logical that Katz prioritises the struggle against one imperialist camp while coquetting with a tactical alliance with the other imperialist camp.

 

Consequently, Katz advocates a “triple strategy for Latin America” which he summarises in the formula: “resistance to the United States, renegotiation with China and the emergence of regional unity.” Naturally, we are fully aware that countries striving for independence and equality have to pursue a Realpolitik since we don’t believe in the Stalinists utopia of building socialism in one country. Hence, opening trade relations and asking for a loan might be a necessary step for such countries.

 

However, a victorious workers and peasant government in a country of the Global South will not limit itself to open such diplomatic and economic relations with other countries (including Great Powers). It will rather focus on expanding the revolutionary process since the only assurance for the workers and peasant power is to strengthen the struggles of its class brothers and sisters to overthrow the ruling class in their countries.

 

In addition, yes, it is absolutely legitimate for a country striving for independence to enter diplomatic and economic relations with other countries (including Great Powers). But why only “renegotiate with China”? Is it not a fact that such countries can equally be obliged to do business with U.S. imperialism? Look at Venezuela which has sold its oil to Washington even in the high days of Chavez’ Bolivarianism.

 

It rather seems to us that Katz advocacy of a strategy for “national sovereignty” is a program for Latin American countries to join BRICS and to side with Chinese and Russian imperialism against the U.S. This is also the meaning of his support for the Putinist concept of “multipolarity”. True, he wants to combine it with a “radical-revolutionary program”. But first, he wants to strengthen the China/Russia-led BRICS because “multipolarity” would “weaken imperialist domination while forging the pillars of a post-capitalist future.”

 

Effectively, this is a version of the reformist strategy of transformation in stages. In the domestic terrain, this usually means to get a majority at parliamentary elections and then to gradually begin the transformation to socialism. In the field of foreign policy, it means for Katz to “support the creation of a multipolar world that paves the way for the transition to socialism.” In fact, a “multipolar world“ only means a world dominated by several Great Powers enmeshed in inter-imperialist rivalry. [30]

 

Objectively, this is a program of one-eyed anti-imperialism and has nothing to do with authentic socialism. In domestic policy it results in defending bourgeois property relations (as this has been the case e.g. in Venezuela in the past quarter of a century) and in foreign policy it results in support for Chinese and Russian imperialism.

 

But, as Lenin explained, the task of socialists is not to support one Great Power against another – irrespective if it is bigger or smaller, stronger or weaker – but to fight against all imperialists! “From the standpoint of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to existence), Germany might be considered absolutely in the right as against Britain and France, for she has been “done out” of colonies, her enemies are oppressing an immeasurably far larger number of nations than she is, and the Slavs that are being oppressed by her ally, Austria, undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those of tsarist Russia, that veritable “prison of nations”. Germany, however, is fighting, not for the liberation of nations, but for their oppression. It is not the business of socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to plunder the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow all of them.” ^[31]

 

 

 

Conclusions

 

 

 

1.           We reject Katz’s theory of a U.S.-led “Empire” which would dominate the world. In fact, new imperialist powers – most importantly China and Russia – have emerged which did put an end to Washington’s absolute hegemony in the period after 1991. These new powers have accumulated substantial economic and military strength and pursue their own imperialist interests independent and in rivalry to the U.S.

 

2.           Katz’s theory is mistaken as it subordinates the contradictions between classes, nations and states to only one contradiction – the U.S.-led “Empire” against the rest of the world. In reality, Marxists have to defend the interests of the popular masses and semi-colonial countries of the south against all capitalist classes and against all Great Powers – against those in the West (U.S., Western Europe, Japan) as well as those in the East (China and Russia).

 

3.           In order to justify his one-eyed anti-imperialism – directed only against the U.S. but not against China and Russia – Katz’s turn’s Lenin’s theory of imperialism on its head and transforms it into an idealist conception of “imperialism” as aggressive foreign policy. In fact, imperialism is the final epoch of capitalism in which a small group of monopolies and Great Powers try to expand their political and economic spheres of influence against the popular masses and in rivalry with each other.

 

4.           Katz’s argues that imperialism as a system of rivalling Great Powers had ended by 1945 and was replaced by a U.S.-led “Empire” in which Washington dominates other Western states. As a result, the inter-imperialist contradictions have been removed. This is a mistaken interpretation of the historical development since World War II. In fact, the inter-imperialist contradictions were subordinated to the overriding contradiction between the imperialist powers and the degenerated workers states, the bloc led by the USSR. After the collapse of Stalinism in 1991, the U.S. became the absolute hegemon. However, this brief period ended with the Great Recession in 2008 as new imperialist powers in the East did emerge – China and Russia. Currently, the main inter-imperialist contradictions are between the Western and the Eastern bloc. However, this does not mean that these are homogenous alliances, and it is quite possible that frictions within both blocks could emerge in the coming period.

 

5.           We consider Katz’s view that Lenin’s program of defeatism would apply only to revolutionary situations as wrong. In fact, the Bolshevik leader considered this program as appropriate for the struggle against all Great Powers in the whole epoch of imperialism, not only in specific situations.

 

6.           Likewise, Katz’s analogy of the U.S.-led “Empire” with Tsarist Russia in the 19^th century and his consequential advocacy of applying Marx’s tactic (with the U.S.-led “Empire” as the main enemy instead of Tsarist Russia) is inappropriate. This is the case not only because we don’t live in a U.S.-dominated unipolar world and not only because it is rather the dictatorships of Putin and Xi which resemble the Tsarist autocracy in Russia more than the U.S. This analogy is also wrong because it is deeply unhistoric and applies an approach to states and wars which was justified in the epoch of transition of feudalism to capitalism to the epoch of decaying capitalism. In the epoch of rising capitalism, the bourgeoisie of various Great Powers in Europe played a certain progressive role and their struggle against Tsarist Russia – the main bastion of feudalism – had to be supported. In the epoch of decaying capitalism, the bourgeoisie of all imperialist powers has a thoroughly reactionary character.

 

7.           Katz’s program of one-eyed anti-imperialism has reactionary consequences as it objectively lends support to Great Powers which are opponents of the U.S. (e.g. China and Russia). Likewise, he advocates support only for those workers and popular struggles which are directed against the U.S.-led “Empire” and its allies. In contrast, he refuses to support, and he even denounces such struggles if they are directed against Russia and China resp. their allied regimes.

 

8.           We reiterate that socialists today must oppose not only one Great Power or one group of allied Great Powers but all imperialists – those in West as well as in East. No solidarity with any of these robbers – international solidarity only with the workers and the oppressed fighting for freedom and a live in dignity!