On the decline of U.S. (ex-)hegemon, the deep crisis of European imperialism and consequences for socialist tactics

 

An Essay (with 4 Tables and 6 Figures) by Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 21 February 2025, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction

 

Europe’s enraged political elite

 

The new foreign policy of the (ex-)hegemon: retreat and refocus

 

The overstretched Great Power: the hard facts of America’s economic decline

 

Once again on the dysfunctional nature of the Trump Administration

 

Time for a requiem for the myth of the “U.S.-led Empire”

 

Towards a new Yalta? No, but…

 

Where is European imperialism going?

 

A note on prospects for right-wing and left-reformist parties

 

On tactics for revolutionaries in Europe

 

* * * * *

 

Introduction

 

 

 

February 2025 will probably go down in history as the month when the so-called Trans-Atlantic partnership between U.S. and European imperialism ended. This has become evident by a number of statements and decisions of the new Trump Administration in the first weeks of its existence.

 

The U.S. President made it unequivocally clear that he wants to end the Ukraine War as soon as possible and is prepared to throw Kyiv under the bus. A long phone call between the American and the Russian President was followed by a meeting between the respective foreign ministers in Riyadh at which both sides agreed to organise a summit of the two state leaders probably in the next future. Wild even by his standards, Trump is now currying favour with Putin by suggesting that it was Ukraine which started the war in February 2022 and that the Eastern European country “might become Russian again”! ^[1]

 

At the same time, the Trump Administration announces that it wants to massively reduce its military presence in Europe and if European powers send troops to Ukraine, Article 5 of the NATO Charta – which would oblige the U.S. to intervene if a European ally comes under attack – would not apply in such a case. In a prepared speech, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on 12 February:

 

“Instead any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission. And they should not be covered under Article 5. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact. “

 

Hegseth also made clear that the U.S. is now turning away from Europe and that European powers must look for themselves:

 

“We’re also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must — and we are — focusing on security of our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail. As the United States prioritizes its attention to these threats, European allies must lead from the front.“ [2]

 

It is therefore not surprising that the New York Times – the long-time mouthpiece of America’s liberal bourgeoisie – recently had the alarmist title: “Trump’s Pivot Toward Putin’s Russia Upends Generations of U.S. Policy”.

 

While Washington tries to force Zelensky to make huge territorial concessions to Russia, it demands from Kyiv to sign an agreement which would hand over 50% of the Ukraine’s mineral, oil, gas, and infrastructure revenues to the American pirates. [3] Even the Britain’s conservative and pro-NATO journal “The Spectator”, felt obliged to denounce this draft agreement as a “piece of blatant economic colonialism”. It noted: “[The U.S.] would extract from the country a greater share of its GDP than the reparations imposed on Germany in the Versailles treaty at the end of the first world war.” [4]

 

It does not need much explanation why the end of the Trans-Atlantic partnership is a historic event as it constitutes the basis of NATO – the most powerful Western military alliance. The close collaboration between North America and Western Europe has been one of the pillars of the imperialist world order since World War II. Naturally, it was never an alliance of equals but dominated by Washington. It was based on the huge economic and military superiority of the U.S. within the capitalist camp since other imperialist powers were either defeated in 1945 (Germany and Japan) or became allies in a subordinated position (Britain and France). [5]

 

These developments do not mean that there will be no collaboration between U.S. and European imperialism in the future. But it will be rather collaboration as necessity arises and not a strategic alliance.

 

 

 

Europe’s enraged political elite

 

 

 

Europe political elite has been taken completely by surprise about Trump’s rupture of the transatlantic alliance and, unsurprisingly, it is enraged and bemoans the betrayal of "shared values". Upping the ante, Washington, to which Europe subordinated for many decades, unceremonial excludes them from the negotiations with Russia. In the words of Armin Papperger, CEO of German arms concern Rheinmetall, Europe has been sent to the "kid's table". The pathetic state of European imperialism has been symbolised by the closing remarks of chairman Christoph Heusgen at the end of this year’s Munich Security Conference. Wiping tears from his eyes, he said in a trembling voice: “After the speech of US Vice President JD Vance on Friday we have to fear that our common value base is not that common anymore. I'm very grateful to all those European politicians and reaffirmed the values and principles they are defending. No one did this more than president Zelenskiy.” ^[6]

 

A recent report of Politico reflects the dire state among Europe’s politicians:

 

“Seven days of presidential interventions in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have made real the nightmares of Ukrainians and many of their allies, upending the transatlantic relationship that has underpinned European security since 1945. Europe’s politicians are beginning to grasp how profoundly their world has changed: They must now deal with an America that is at best skeptical and at worst hostile to the old world they represent.

 

If there were any lingering doubts about the extent of Trump’s willingness to make enemies in Europe, he ended it Tuesday night when he blamed Ukraine for having “started” the war with Russia. Such blatant defiance of the fact of Putin’s unprovoked invasion three years ago shocked even America’s most loyal friends in the region. (…)

 

“We now have an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe,” another European diplomat observed in recent days, declining to be identified discussing sensitive matters. “The transatlantic alliance is over.” (…) In internal discussions in Brussels, some diplomats are directly broaching a notion that was once unthinkable: that the U.S. leadership is finding common ground with Russia in seeking to destroy the EU.” ^[7]

 

 

 

The new foreign policy of the (ex-)hegemon: retreat and refocus

 

 

 

There are also other decisions which reflect the new foreign policy of the Trump Administration. The U.S. President has stated that he wants to expand America’s territory by annexing other countries like Panama, Greenland, Canada or even Gaza by military or non-military means. ^[8] Furthermore, he announced that he is determined to impose tariffs on imports from numerous states – both allies as well as rivals. Furthermore, the Pentagon has been tasked to draw plans for a retreat of the occupation forces in Syria – about 2,000 troops – in three months. Washington has also started a slow process of withdrawing 9,000 Marines - half of its forces – and closing four of its eleven military bases on the Japanese island Okinawa. There are also rumours that the White House wants to withdraw its troops from South Korea or even most of the 80,000 American soldiers stationed in Europe.

 

All this is, of course, not part of a turn to pacifism by U.S. imperialism – far from it. This becomes evident by Hegseth’s statement that America “is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific” which is consistent with the so-called “pivot to Asia” which already began under the Obama Administration, and which reflects a) the importance of this region which has the largest population and economy and b) the challenge of China as America’s most important imperialist rival. ^[9]

 

Such a policy of retreating from several regions in order to refocus on preparing for war against China makes sense from the point of view of the declining American hegemon. As we did show in other works, China’s rise as an economic, political and military Great Power has made it the biggest imperialist rival of the U.S. [10]

 

Other signs that the new U.S. foreign policy will remain militarist are the repeated threats of military strikes against Iran or the designation of Mexican cartels as “global terrorist organisations” which the U.S. military could strike in cross-border attacks. [11]

 

As we have pointed out on various occasions, the policy of the Trump Administration is full of contradictions with a lowly gifted at the top. ^[12] If China is the main enemy, why do they piss-off the Europeans? Why does he threaten higher tariffs for allied countries like Canada and Mexico than for key rival China?! And why does Trump want to outpace Netanyahu in making genocidal statements?! [13]

 

Nevertheless, despite the often wired statements of the orange man in the White House, there exists a certain logic behind the turn in foreign policy. The new Administration is the first one which recognises the end of U.S. hegemony and does no longer attempt to dominate the world. As we will see in the chapter below, this is a recognition long overdue, and which has been forced by the economic decline of American imperialism. With roughly 750 military bases spread out across 80 countries and with conflicts on all continents plus alliances which obligate it to intervene, the U.S. is massively overstretched. For too long, U.S. imperialism had a superior political and military position which did not correspond to its declining economic fundament.

 

This objective contradiction pushes Washington to retreat and to reduce its global outreach. This marks a dramatic turn in America’s foreign policy as previous Administrations had attempted to avoid such conclusions. In the last years, Biden tried (and failed) to rally “the world” to defeat Russia with unprecedented sanctions after the beginning of the Ukraine War or to stem China’s rapid progress in modern technologies via comprehensive sanctions.

 

The Trump Administration seems to recognise the changed reality. This is reflected in an interesting interview of the new U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio who said that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that there is now a “multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet” ^[14]

 

Ending its support for Ukraine, reducing troops deployments abroad, dropping its long-time European allies, striking deals with imperialist rivals like Russia, focusing on a main enemy (China) – all this has a certain logic for a declining hegemonic Great Power.

 

Now, as indicated above, there are certain inner contradictions in Trump’s policy. It might be the case that Washington is so pessimistic about America’s strength that it rather tries to rob (weaker) allies than stronger imperialist rivals. Try to grab as much as possible and as quickly as possible – might be the leitmotiv of the crazy clown in the White House. Hence, the idea to annex Panama or Greenland, to plunder Ukraine or may be even to annex Canada. However, such a pirate-like policy provokes massive conflicts with previously close allies and could easily result in a situation where “America First is quickly becoming America Alone”, as Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth accurately said. [15]

 

An additional factor might simply be the existence of contradictory interests within the new Administration and its close allies. Think about the ultra-Zionist lobby of evangelic fundamentalists who occupy important positions. Or think about figures like the influential Senator Lindsay Graham who urges the Administration to rather bomb Iran than to negotiate about its nuclear program. Add to all this Trump’s obscene plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Such a policy will inevitable result in wars and political explosions in the Middle East and force the U.S. either to military intervene again – in a region which it wants to deprioritise in favour of focusing on China – or to retreat in shame.

 

Anyway, despite all these inner contradictions, it seems to us that the concept of retreating and refocusing is the underlying general logic of America’s new foreign policy.

 

On consequence of this sharp turn, which can hardly be overestimated, is that it destroys within a few weeks America’s leading role as the defender of a “rule-based world order”, of “democracy” and “human rights”. Of course, this was always a lie with which the U.S., and Western imperialism in general, camouflaged its domination. Still, it was highly advantageous for Washington to be the leading representative of the liberal imperialist ideology for eight decades. The liquidation of USAID and the vulgar pirate policy of the Trump Administration show that these days are over now. The U.S. is now an ugly Great Power in the eyes of the whole world. At least one achievement, Mr. Trump!

 

 

 

The overstretched Great Power: the hard facts of America’s economic decline

 

 

 

As mentioned above, the main reason for the end of America’s hegemony is the lacking economic fundament for such a role. It lives far beyond its means. This becomes evident if one takes the chronic and growing trade deficit, resulting in rapidly increasing debt.

 

While the U.S. had a trade deficit already since 1982, it has dramatically increased in the past three decades. Today it imports about $100 billion more than it exports. (See Figure 1)

 

 

 

Figure 1: Trade Balance: Goods and Services, Balance of Payments Basis, 1992-2024 (in US-Dollar) [16]

 

 

 

 

Things are even worse if one takes only the trade balance of goods (which represents the bulk of capitalist value, in contrast to services). Here, the balance of payments deteriorated from a deficit of $6.9 billion US-Dollar (1992) to $36.8 (2009), $75.3 (2020) and $123 billion at the end of 2024. (See Figure 2)

 

 

 

Figure 2: Trade Balance: Goods, Balance of Payments Basis 1992-2024 (in US-Dollar) [17]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This development goes hand in hand with an increasing negative net international investment position which means that the difference between the stock of foreign assets and foreign liabilities is steadily growing. At the end of 2024, the U.S. had foreign assets of $36.0 trillion but foreign liabilities of $57.1 trillion. (See Figure 3 and 4)

 

 

 

Figure 3. U.S. International Investment Position, Foreign Assets vs. Foreign Liabilities 2006-2024 (in Trillions of dollars) [18]

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. U.S. Net International Investment Position, 2015-2024 (in Trillions of dollars) ^[19]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consequently, public debt has doubled since 2014 from 17.6 to 35.4 trillion US-Dollar, i.e. within only a decade. ^[20] Putting it in relation to America’s economic output, public debt exploded from “only” 55% of GDP in 2001 to a record level of 123% today. Consequently, interest payments have dramatically increased and effectively tripled since the Great Recession in 2008 (and doubled within only 4 years since the Great Depression in 2020). (See Figure 5) In fiscal year 2025, 16% of total federal spending must be spent to maintain the debt – even more than for the military. [21]

 

 

 

Figure 5. Federal Government Current Expenditures: Interest Payments, 1945-2024 (in Billions of dollars) [22]

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, the U.S. is living far above its means. It consumes much more than it produces and it spends much more than it has.

 

Behind this development is the simple fact that the expanded reproduction of capital loses dynamic, expressed in declining growth rates of value production and capital accumulation. This, in turn, is the result of the tendency of the profit rate to fall, a law of capitalist economy which Marx considered “in every respect the most important law of modern political economy.“ ^[23]

 

Two Marxist economists, Ascension Mejorado and Manuel Roman, showed in a recently published book the close relationship between the declining profit rate, a slowing rate of accumulation and declining growth rates in output in the U.S. economy since the early 1970s. (See Table 1)

 

 

 

Table 1. U.S. Economy: Ten-Year Averages in Business Profit Rates and Accumulation Rates and Real GDP Growth Rates, 1950-2020 [24]

 

Years                                   Business Sector                 Business Sector                Real GDP

 

             Profit Rates                        Accumulation                   Growth

 

             Averages                            Averages                           Averages

 

1950–1959                        12.42%                              2.86%                                4.24%

 

1960–1969                        12.16%                              3.77%                                4.53%

 

1970–1979                        10.28%                              3.61%                                3.24%

 

1980–1989                        8.52%                                3.02%                                3.13%

 

1990–1999                        8.56%                                2.55%                                3.23%

 

2000–2009                        8.19%                                2.14%                                1.93%

 

2010–2020                        8.65%                                1.89%                                1.74%

 

 

 

Figures for the rate of profit of U.S. corporations, provided by Michael Roberts, another Marxist economist, show the same trend. (See Figure 6)

 

 

 

Figure 6. U.S. Average Rate of Profit on Corporate Capital, 1945-2021 ^[25]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is worth noting that even bourgeois economists like David Goldman have been forced to recognise the relationship between the slowing accumulation of capital and the growing trade deficit: “There’s a clear correspondence between our trade deficit and the slowing growth rate of manufacturing capital stock. The growth rate of capital stock slowed well before the trade deficit ballooned during the 2000s.” ^[26]

 

Goldman also points to the fact that, as a result of its deindustrialisation, the U.S. produces less and less capital goods, i.e. the machinery equipment necessary for manufacturing, but increasingly relies on imports. “In 2021, American imports of capital goods rose to the level of US production of capital goods for domestic consumption (total capital goods production minus exports). That is, the United States now depends on imports for half its total consumption of capital goods.” [27]

 

In summary, we see how the economic fundament of U.S. imperialism has faced increasing contradictions in the past decades. Consequently, the U.S. economy lost its undisputed leading position in particular since the Great Recession in 2008 vis-à-vis the new emerging Great Power China. In the Table 2 and 3 we can see how China has been able to challenge the leading position of its American rival.

 

 

 

Table 2. Top Six Countries in Global Manufacturing, 2000 and 2023 ^[28]

 

Rank      Country                             Share 2000          Share 2023

 

1.           China                                9.8%                    31.8%

 

2.           U.S.                                   23.7%                  15.0%

 

3.           Japan                                10.2%                  6.6%

 

4.           Germany                          6.4%                    4.6%

 

5.           India                                 1.4%                    3.2%

 

6.           South Korea                    2.5%                    3.0%

 

 

 

Table 3. Top 10 Countries with the Ranking of Fortune Global 500 Companies, 2005, 2012 and 2023 ^[29]

 

Rank     Country                                                        Companies (Share in%)

 

                                                                       2005                     2012                    2023

 

1            United States                               175 (35.0%)        132 (26.4%)        136 (27.2%)

 

2            China (excl. Taiwan)                      16 (3.2%)            73 (14.6%)         135 (27.0%)

 

3            Japan                                                81 (16.2%)          68 (13.6%)           41 (8.2%)

 

4            Germany                                         37 (7.4%)            32 (6.4%)             30 (6.0%)

 

5            France                                              39 (7.8%)            32 (6.4%)             23 (4.6%)

 

6            South Korea                                   11 (2.2%)            13 (2.6%)             18 (3.6%)

 

7            United Kingdom                            35 (7.0%)            26 (5.2%)            15 (3.0%)

 

8            Canada                                            13 (2.6%)            11 (2.2%)             14 (2.8%)

 

9            Switzerland                                    11 (2.2%)            15 (3.0%)             11 (2.2%)

 

10          Netherlands                                  14 (2.8%)            12 (2.4%)             10 (2.0%)

 

 

 

One must bear in mind that when the U.S. established its absolute hegemony among capitalist countries after World War II, it accounted for half of global manufacturing. Today it is only 15%! In other words, the U.S. does no longer possess the economic basis to act as the global hegemon. The retreat from its overstretched political and military position has been overdue for long and seems to be implemented now by the new Trump Administration.

 

 

 

Once again on the dysfunctional nature of the Trump Administration

 

 

 

Can the Trump Administration succeed in “making America great again”? This is extremely unlikely. As we noted in another document, the new Administration distinguishes itself from previous ones in so far as it is much less a bourgeois governments which represent, more or less, the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie and, more generally, the "ideal total capitalist“ (Engels). Usually, bourgeois governments are dominated by a (sector of a) political elite which has experience in running a state. Of course, such elite is always closely connected with monopoly capitalists but has nevertheless a certain autonomy in order to represent the longer-term interests of the whole class (or at least a fraction of it).

 

In contrast, the new Administration is rather a government of and for the super-rich. Its total worth is around $460 billion and 16 of its members are billionaires of which Trump and Elon Musk are only the most prominent ones! [30] It is a wrecking ball government determined to ensure maximum profit as quickly as possible for their own business. For this goal, they destroy whole departments of the state apparatus in order to remove political unreliable bureaucrats and to cut costs so that they can finance tax cuts for corporations.

 

However, in order to “make America great again”, Washington would need to undertake massive public investment in order to rebuild a strong manufacturing industry and to educate a skilled labour force. Instead, the Trump Administration makes huge cuts in the public education and health sector and destroys essential sectors for America’s global influence (like USAID). Instead of implementing a strategic plan for America’s bourgeoisie, “secret President” Musk tries to get access of all tax data so that he can promote his own business interests.

 

And it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the short-term business interests of the members of the Trump Administration (resp. of their close friends) play an important role in their plans to plunder Ukraine, to make deals with Saudi Arabia or Russia, etc.

 

In other words, the Trump Administration is rather a greedy gang of billionaires than a bonapartist regime which has a certain autonomy of the individual capitalists, and which follows a strategic plan. It is difficult to imagine how such an Administration could reverse the decline of U.S. imperialism.

 

 

 

Towards a new Yalta? No, but…

 

 

 

There is growing speculation that Trump’s rupture with Europe and his overtures to Putin could result in a new Yalta agreement. Eighty years ago, on 4 February 1945, an important conference took place in Yalta, a city on the Crimean Peninsula. In this agreement, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill – the leaders of the Allied Powers which fought Nazi-Germany and Japan – laid the groundwork for the post-war world order. It basically divided the world in two spheres of influence – that of Western imperialism and that of the Stalinist USSR. This agreement more or less shaped the world order until the collapse of Stalinism in 1991. Various bourgeois observers speculate now if Trump might attempt to initiate a similar conference with Putin and Xi.

 

Such writes Andreas Kluth, a well-known commentator at Bloomberg: “The world seems doomed to a ‘new Yalta’ between Trump, Putin and Xi – that is, a new post-war world order pact. However, it will be based on the right of force and could lead to a war between the US, China and the Russian Federation. (…) It will be a pact between imperialists based on no lofty ideological views other than the notion that force is right and coercion is fair play. This could lead to war between them if they cannot agree on the spoils. This will certainly doom some small countries that find themselves in the centre.” ^[31]

 

David Goldman and Uwe Parpart, two Trump-friendly commentators, write about a possible meeting of Trump, Putin and Xi:

 

“A three-way summit in Moscow is far from certain. If it occurs, the agenda will look something like this:

 

1) A ceasefire in Ukraine with Russia in permanent control of the territory it has already taken, including most of the core Russophone provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, along with new elections in Ukraine that almost certainly would eliminate Zelensky. Some European or UK peacekeepers might be allowed, given that the Europeans have too few deployable forces to make trouble, and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has already declared peacekeepers would not be protected by the mutual defense provisions of NATO treaties.

 

2) A rapid end to economic sanctions on Russia. Whether gas supplies would be restored is a matter of negotiation, given that Trump would rather sell US natural gas to Russia (at roughly double the Russian price) rather than restore Russian supplies.

 

3) An agreement with China to stabilize the status of Taiwan. This probably would fall short of a new Shanghai Agreement (that 1972 treaty restored diplomatic relations between the US and China), but be robust enough to please both sides.

 

4) The beginning of a nuclear arms negotiation on the scale of the Reagan-Gorbachev agreement at Reykjavik in 1986.” ^[32]

 

Leading politicians in Russia, like Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the international affairs committee of Russia’s upper house of parliament, hope for a renewed “peaceful coexistence” – a key term of the Stalinist USSR which desired peaceful and stable relations with Western imperialism. “It doesn’t mean we’re friends but there’s mutual respect, cooperation where possible, an effort to understand each other’s positions, and active diplomacy aimed at finding a balance.” ^[33]

 

Fyodor Lukyanov – one of Russia’s most influential political analysts – has rather a sober view on such prospects with other Great Powers and he believes that a kind of Yalta agreement can’t be repeated.

 

“Moreover, the concept of a “world order,” as understood in Western terms, is losing relevance. For centuries, the great powers of Europe and later the Northern Hemisphere imposed rules that gradually extended to the entire planet. But as Western hegemony wanes, those rules no longer resonate universally. The rising powers of the Global South and East are not eager to take up the mantle of global leadership. Instead, they prioritize safeguarding their interests in specific contexts, echoing Trump’s transactional approach. (…)

 

This shift does not eliminate the need for frameworks of coexistence. However, future international relations are more likely to resemble the flexible, informal structure of BRICS+ rather than rigid, binding agreements. This model acknowledges shared interests without imposing strict criteria or legal obligations.

 

Could a new “Yalta” agreement be possible between Russia and the West? In theory, yes. A limited arrangement aimed at resolving specific regional disputes might emerge. However, there are no signs of such an initiative at present. Even if it materialized, its global impact would be limited. The era of comprehensive agreements defining world order appears to be over.“ ^[34]

 

The fact that there is public speculation about the possibility of a kind of Yalta summit certainly shows that we are living in a historic moment where the world order passes through profound changes. The transatlantic relationship has been a key pillar of the world order in the past 80 years and the rupture of the alliance between American and European imperialism marks a historic watershed. But how realistic is another Yalta summit?

 

We can't know if there will be a summit between Trump, Putin and Xi. However, in our view, it is rather misleading to compare a possible meeting between the American, Russian and Chinese leaders with the Yalta summit in 1945. As mentioned above, Yalta created a division of the world in two spheres of influence which lasted for nearly half a century. A repetition of such an event is impossible. Why? Because the current historic period is very different to the era between 1945-91. That era was characterized by a spectacular recovery of capitalism after the devastating World War – the so-called Long Boom in the 1950s and 1960s – which provided the material conditions for the bourgeoisie to make compromises with the working class and the oppressed peoples.

 

Likewise, powerful Stalinist parties helped the imperialist camp to ensure relative stability. In those cases where revolutionary crises erupted – like in Greece, France and Italy 1945-48, in France 1968 or in Portugal and Spain 1974-76 – the Stalinist parties utilized their substantial influence in order to pacify the working class.

 

Furthermore, the Stalinist camp was not capitalist but rested on a (bureaucratically) planned economy. This made it possible to provide far more economic stability and social welfare than Russia and China will be able in the coming period.

 

In contrast, we are currently living in a historic period which is characterized by capitalist decline, revolutionary explosions as well as threats of wars and counterrevolution. There exists no material basis for a long-term and stable division of the world. [35]

 

Furthermore, the productive forces are much more developed than they were 80 years ago. The previous period – 1914 to 1945 – was one in which capitalism had experienced two world wars and a devastating economic depression. Today technologies are far more advanced, and corporations desperately need a global market. A world hermetically divided into separate spheres of influence is impossible today. The Great Powers could not accept it. China has gigantic factories producing huge amounts of commodities which must be exported to the global market. Likewise, the U.S. needs access to countries on all continents to export their weapons, their chips or their AI services. All Great Powers need the world market for the financial operations of their banks und funds. The U.S. needs the global financial markets in order to attract money which can fund their debts. Globalization has been a result of the growth of productive forces and the need of monopolies to deepen their grip on the world market. [36]

 

At the same time, the fundamental strategic interests of the Great Powers are diametrically opposed. China needs access to all regions of the world market. Trump wants to reduce China’s exports to the U.S. market. But this means that Chinese corporations need even more access to the markets of the Global South and Europe. But the U.S. also needs these markets. And what shall happen with Japan’s and Europe’s monopolies – they will hardly abandon their business interests! It is no accident that Washington – from the Obama to the current Trump Administration – has identified China as its main rival. Why should this suddenly no longer be the case?!

 

Nevertheless, it would be mistaken to exclude the possibility of a summit of Trump, Putin and Xi where the three parties agree on a kind of deal. A pacification of the Ukraine War (including lifting sanctions against Russia), some kind of temporary agreement about Taiwan and trade between Washington and Beijing, an agreement to start negotiations about arms control – such a deal is possible.

 

However, such a deal could only have short term effects for the stabilization of the world situation. The depressed state of the world economy, the resulting conflicts, wars, civil wars, coups and revolutionary upheavals in various countries, the diametrically opposed interests of the Great Powers involved in such a summit plus the interests of those powers which are excluded from this meeting – all this guarantees that even if another Yalta summit would take place, it won’t take long until its agreements will be no more than thin air.

 

 

 

Time for a requiem for the myth of the “U.S.-led Empire”

 

 

 

One of the most debated issues among Marxists in the last years has been the analysis of imperialism in the 21^st century. A number of intellectuals, usually associated with Stalinist and Bolivarian forces as well as representatives of the world-system theory, claim that imperialism had fundamentally changed after World War II.

 

Among the best-known representatives of this current are the U.S. magazine Monthly Review, edited by the academic John Bellamy Foster, Immanuel Ness, a university professor in New York, and Claudio Katz, another academic in Buenos Aires who is among the most noted progressive economists in Latin America.

 

According to them, imperialism did transform into a U.S.-led Empire after World War II. This means that such a Western alliance of North America, Western Europe, Japan and several other countries would be led by Washington; the other states would be merely its vassals. Collectively, this Empire would dominate and exploit the world. At the same time, these theoreticians deny that China and Russia are imperialist powers, and several of them even claim that the Middle Kingdom would be a socialist country.

 

Consequently, this camp argues that, in contrast to the times of Lenin and other Marxist classics, inter-imperialist rivalry would no longer exist. They also support the ideology of the Russian and Chinese regimes and advocate the creation of a “multipolar world system” – i.e. a world with several Great Powers instead of a unipolar, U.S.-dominated world order. Such a multipolar world system would be, according to them, a step forward for the international working class and oppressed peoples. [37]

 

It is therefore hardly surprising that the advocates of this camp slander orthodox Marxists as supporters of American imperialism. Immanuel Ness, for example, calls several authors, including myself, as “neo-conservative Marxists” and “New Cold War theorists” who supposedly “support the expansion of U.S. dominance in Eastern Europe, East Asia, West Asia, Africa and beyond.”

 

In reality, we oppose all Great Powers equally, Western imperialism as well as Eastern imperialism. We are, in contrast to the cheerleaders of Xi and Putin, consistent internationalists and anti-imperialists. Marxists have traditionally called “left-wing” supporters of one imperialist camp as “social-imperialists”. In this sense, we characterise the ideologists of the “multipolar world system” as pro-Chinese resp. pro-Russian social-imperialists. ^[38]

 

The author of these lines as well as other Marxists have been engaged in various debates with representatives of this camp. ^[39] As I explained in my contributions, this theory is fundamentally flawed. First, capitalism had been already restored in China in the 1990s and two decades later it transformed into an imperialist power. Likewise, Russia became a Great Power when the Putin regime managed to rebuild the country’s military and economic power in the early 2000s. [40]

 

Secondly, the formation of the Western imperialist alliance did not reflect a qualitative transformation of imperialism in the sense that it had become a “U.S.-led Empire”. It was rather the result of concrete and temporary historical conditions. As mentioned above, the outcome of World War II resulted in the hegemonic role of the U.S. within the capitalist camp since other imperialist powers were either defeated (Germany and Japan) or became allies in a subordinated position (Britain and France). Furthermore, the expansion of the Stalinist camp and the onset of the Cold War pushed all imperialist states to unite under Washington’s leadership. Hence, the inter-imperialist rivalry was not eliminated but rather overdetermined by another contradiction – that between Western powers and the USSR-led camp of Stalinist states. With the collapse of Stalinism in 1991, this historic factor disappeared.

 

However, the domination of the U.S. – particularly in the military field and in global institutions – continued to exist for another period and was, to a certain degree, reinforced by the emergence of new imperialist powers like China and Russia. Nevertheless, the European powers (as well as others like Japan, South Korea or Australia) did not lose their imperialist character in all those years. Their relationship with Washington was rather overdetermined by other contradictions.

 

In fact, conflicts of interests between the U.S. and Western Europe repeatedly emerged like during Israel’s war against Egypt in 1956 – with the support of Britain and France – which the U.S. strongly opposed. Another example is France’s withdrawal from NATO's integrated military command in 1966. In recent years, there have been various trade disputes between the U.S. and the European Union; another example is the controversy about the North Stream pipeline which Washington solved by military means. In the end, the economic decline of the U.S., its major political failures (e.g. its global isolation in supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its failed sanction regime against Russia or its failure to stem China’s rapid progress in modern technologies via sanctions) and its increasing domestic conflicts have accelerated the tensions between the U.S. and its European allies. We are now living in a period where these antagonisms explode in plain view.

 

The proceeding rupture between American and European imperialism is therefore also a devastating blow not only for the conservative, liberal and social democratic politicians in Europe who have been dedicated to the transatlantic alliance. It is also a reckoning with the un-Marxist theory of the “U.S.-led Empire” which proclaims that the European powers would no longer constitute distinct imperialist states but are only vassals of Washington.

 

Naturally, we don’t know how exactly the Great Power rivalry between the Western powers will proceed in the coming years. But there is no doubt that at least several of Washington’s allies will have to act independently and will clash with the U.S.

 

Another historical confirmation of the Marxist critique of the “U.S.-led Empire” theory is the fact that the emergence of China and Russia as Great Powers and challengers of the U.S. played a decisive role in bringing down the hegemon. This is irrefutable proof that these states were not “(semi-)peripherical countries” – as the supporters of the world-system theory proclaim – but imperialist states in their own right. In short, we can already hear the knells for the “U.S.-led Empire” theory where history invites their demoralized supporters to the requiem.

 

 

 

Where is European imperialism going?

 

 

 

We have analysed America’s problems as a declining (ex-)hegemon. However, Europe’s problems are certainly not smaller. Its monopolies have lost influence on the world market even more than their American competitors. (See Table 2 and 3). Its global influence has also suffered from the rise of China and Russia. However, European imperialism is in a worse basic position as it does not have a unified state with a single army, bureaucracy, etc. It is rather a close alliance of nation states which share some interests but also have diverging positions.

 

At this point we will not discuss the economic and political challenges of European imperialism in detail. We will rather limit ourselves to outline a few theses.

 

First, the termination of the transatlantic partnership by Trump has opened the worst political crisis of Europe’s ruling class since 1945. Tellingly, The Economist runs the cover of its current issue with the picture of Trump and Putin and the title “Europe’s Worst Nightmare” in big letters. Nearly all established parties on the continent – from conservatives and liberals to social democrats – have made the alliance with U.S. imperialism a pillar of their political world view. Now, the long-time husband has suddenly become a ghost! This means that all these parties will undergo a process of crisis and intensive debate about a new world view.

 

But what can be perspectives for Europe’s Great Powers and their political representatives? In the first period, it is likely that Europe’s politicians will try to reverse Trump’s “divorce” and to find some compromise so that the U.S. does not withdraw its troops and does not reduce Europe’s access to America’s market. And it can not be excluded that some compromises could be achieved – Trump is not known for consistency and often forgets what he said on the day before.

 

However, as we did show above, the cause for the rupture of the transatlantic alliance is not Trump’s temperament but the objective problems of U.S. imperialism (and the imperialist world system as a whole). Trump and the MAGA movement are a result of this crisis and not the cause. A reconstitution of the close alliance of the U.S. and Europe is therefore nearly excluded.

 

Europe’s Great Powers and their political representatives must therefore look for an alternative strategy. While the interventions of Trump in the past weeks have taken the political elite of the “old continent” by surprise, there has been a process of thinking about building Europe as an independent imperialist powers for some time. Theoretically, things are pretty clear. Europe has a strong economy collectively and if it could open a process of massive armament and build a proper pan-European state apparatus enabling it to act as a single Great Power, it could take on other imperialist rivals like China, Russia or the U.S.

 

However, as is well known, Europe is not united but divided in different long-existing nation states. Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Spain are imperialist powers in their own right (add to this several smaller imperialist countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Austria or the Scandinavian countries). These powers – Germany and France are the most important ones – have repeatedly failed to advance the formation of a single European power. A joint European army still does not exist. Germany pushed – against the resistance of France, Italy and Spain – projects like the European Sky Shield Initiative, an integrated European air defence system, which however depends on U.S. support. There are also very few joint strategic production projects and cross-border corporations.

 

In order to advance such a project, it would require the formation of political parties pushing for the creation of a pan-European state and a decisive push by governments committed to such a program. This can not be excluded but it is evident that there exist huge obstacles. First, it would be necessary that the bourgeoise of all European countries would be prepared to make substantial compromises on political and economic issues. Second, they would have to win the population for such a project which is not a small thing in a period of rising nationalism!

 

It is therefore also possible that the European Union will split and either a smaller union will emerge – probably around Germany or France – or each nation state will struggle for itself.

 

In any case, such a union resp. each imperialist nation state has to think about a new geostrategic concept. What shall be its relations with the U.S., Russia and China (or other European powers)? Clearly, the weaker the European states are, the more they have to play a weaker or even subordinated role in such relations with other Great Powers.

 

Whatever the future looks like, in each scenario the ruling class will be forced to dramatically increase their military spending. Likewise, in order to finance such projects of armament and to keep Europe’s corporation competitive on the world market, governments will wage massive attacks against labour rights and welfare. As we noted somewhere else, such a process has already begun some years ago. ^[41] However, it is inevitable that Europe’s bourgeoisie will have to massively intensify this process now. (See Table 4)

 

 

 

Table 4. Military Spending in 2023 (in US Dollar and as a Share of GDP) [42]

 

                                            In Billion US Dollar                       Share of GDP

 

United States                  880.1                                                3.4%

 

China                                309.5                                                1.7%

 

Russia                               126.5                                                5.9%

 

UK                                       69.2                                                 2.3%

 

Germany                           61.2                                                 1.5%

 

France                                57.1                                                 2.1%

 

 

 

Such attacks will inevitably provoke resistance by the masses. In addition, it is very likely that sectors of the population will not support the new orientation of governments. In such a situation of domestic turmoil and conflicts, governments will act more decisively against domestic political opponents and wipe up national chauvinism against migrants as well as against rivalling powers (again a process which has been going on already for a number of years but which will intensify now even more). Furthermore, they will work hard to advance a militarisation of the society in order to “prepare the population for war and attacks from enemies against our fatherland”. [43]

 

It is therefore very likely that the ruling class in Europe will systematically attack democratic rights. At the same time, given the necessity to create a pan-European state or smaller unions (or to make sharp turns in foreign policy as a nation state), there will be a strong tendency to dismantle bourgeois democracy and to advance the creation of Bonapartist regimes. Such a policy is advocated not only by right-wing forces but also by so-called liberal parties as we have seen during the COVID Counterrevolution 2020-22 or in the course of the Gaza War.

 

 

 

A note on prospects for right-wing and left-reformist parties

 

 

 

We shall briefly deal with those parties which have not been part of Europe’s political elite, and which have not shared its transatlantic orientation. Concretely we talk about several right-wing parties like Le Pen’s RN in France, Germany’s AfD or left-wing reformist and populist formations like Mélenchon’s LFI in France, Wagenknecht’s BSW in Germany or, to a lesser degree, the Party of the European Left (LINKE in Germany, PCF in France and PCE in Spain).

 

These parties, despite the fact that they did not share the elite’s transatlantic illusions, will also pass through a process of crisis and internal discussion. Right-wing parties like the AfD have received massive support by leading figures of the Trump camp (like Elon Musk or JD Vance). However, since Trump is now in power, Germany will likely face problems with Washington not only about the Ukraine War but also about basic things like tariffs. An AfD in power can hardly cheer an opponent who wages economic war against their fatherland! The political elite needs a government which defends its national (capitalist) interests against rivalling Great Powers. And for this, it needs parties which are “patriots” and not vassals of foreign enemies (as it was the case with various pro-Nazi parties outside Germany before 1939). Hence, it is likely that some right-wing parties in Europe will go through a process of re-orientation (and maybe splits).

 

Things are a bit different with left-reformist and populist parties. These parties never advocated support for Trump. They rather promoted sympathies for Russia (and China) and/or advocated the need for an “independent” national or European policy. This has often been combined with advocacy of pacifism. [44] Of course, their opposition to U.S. imperialism and domestic militarism was always subordinated to their desire to become part of a capitalist government coalition. Hence, the French PCF as well as the Spanish CP as well as SYRIZA in Grece served in NATO governments and the Finnish “Left Alternative” even advocated joining the Western military alliance in 2022! [45]

 

Nevertheless, these parties could face the following problem. Traditionally, the appeal to their electorate was based on opposition to militarism and not advocacy for a strong army which can take on other Great Powers around the globe. Every capitalist government in Europe in the coming years will massively increase its military spending. Of course, we know from history that left-reformist parties have been able in (pre-)war periods to became ardent patriots and militarists. See social democracy in World War I or Stalinism after 1935. Still, it is certainly not an easy issue, and one can expect also here controversial internal discussions and possibly splits.

 

 

 

On tactics for revolutionaries in Europe

 

 

 

While we can not predict the future development of European imperialism, it is clear that the coming years will see deep domestic crisis and conflicts between powers and states on the continent. Counterrevolutionary and revolutionary explosions and even military conflicts in Europe are realistic possibilities. It is the responsibility of Marxists to intervene in the coming struggles on the basis of an internationalist, anti-imperialist and class struggle program.

 

Faced with massive attacks on social and democratic rights, it is crucial to build grassroot committees in workplaces and neighbourhoods in order to organise the fightback. They must push the trade unions and other mass organisations including left-reformist and populist parties to organise mass demonstrations, strikes and general strikes against these attacks. Such committees should also independently organise struggles if the reformist bureaucracy refuses to fight or tries to limit such protests to symbolic actions.

 

As we outlined in more detail in our statement on the shift of European imperialism towards armament and militarization, such a program must take a position of intransigent opposition against the ruling class at home. ^[46] We can expect in the months and years ahead that the working class will be bombarded with patriotic appeals to support armament of their own country in such difficult times where crazy people and dictators threaten “our democracy”. Revolutionaries have to reply to such propaganda that workers certainly oppose dictators like Putin and Xi or genocide-lovers like Trump. But the biggest threat at the moment is not abroad but is the very elite which rules our country, and which imposes on us austerity programs and attacks on democratic rights. We repeat, workers must take an internationalist and anti-imperialist opposition against all imperialist Great Powers.

 

Likewise, Marxists refuse to take a side in the debate if an imperialist country should join resp. remain in the European Union or if it is preferable to stay outside the EU as an independent imperialist state. Workers must oppose both options since we do not prefer one or the other variant of imperialist state formation. [47]

 

The RCIT has emphasised for a number of years that intransigent opposition against imperialist war and chauvinism must be combined with a revolutionary approach to the national and democratic question. [48] Many so-called Marxists confuse opposition to nationalism in general with ignorance towards legitimate struggles of oppressed peoples. We therefore advocate the defence of national and religious minorities (e.g. Muslim migrants) against chauvinist attacks. We advocate full equality for migrants in terms of citizenship rights (right to use their native language in public administration and education, right to vote, access to social and health service, etc.) as well as open borders. [49]

 

Likewise, we fully support the national liberation wars which have been waged by the Ukrainian people against Russian imperialism or by the Palestinian people against the Zionist terror state. Likewise, we side with Ansar Allah (also called Houthis) in Yemen against U.S. and European imperialism. (In the same spirit we supported the resistance of the Iraqi and Afghan people against the U.S./NATO occupiers.)

 

If the Great Powers succeed, with the help of local lackeys, to pacify the war of national defence of the Ukrainian people Russian imperialism and to leave Ukrainian territories in the hands of the occupiers, socialists will support efforts to reorganise the resistance in order to free the country from occupation.

 

In summary, socialists need to separate legitimate national liberation struggles from Great Power rivalry and strongly support the first while strictly opposing all imperialists.

 

The tasks of socialists in the coming period are big … but so is the crisis of the ruling class. In such a period, revolutionaries need to unite on the basis of a common program of struggle in order to build a revolutionary leadership which can fight and replace the reformist and populist bureaucracy in workers and popular mass organisations. Only such a leadership can lead the workers and oppressed to victory, i.e. the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist class which opens the road to international socialism. The RCIT calls all those who share our perspective to join us in order to advance the construction of a Revolutionary World Party!