[This text was written for an exchange about globalisation in the International Discussion Network in which we take part]

I – Ultra-Imperialism

Once a while, when someone speak about Globalisation, Empire, World state institutions and so on, the Kautsky’s Ghost raise from the Grave. The best known renegade – after Judas – take with him another plague, and its name is Ultra-imperialism. What do we know about this calamity ? A few quotes from Lenin, prophet in a single country. Theses quotes, widely diffused, are based upon an article published in 1915 in Der Neue Zeit, titled “Zwei Schritte zum Umlernen” (Two Steps to Unlearn). This article seems not have been translated in French, nor in English, and if there were, there’s no available copy ; at least, no one refers it, and my investigations about this leads to only one conclusion : people who speak about ultra-imperialism rarely read Kautsky article. As Lenin anathema on Ultra-imperialism was fulminated after his rupture with its traitor master, and brandish as a proof of its felony, we’re exactly in the same situation as study of ancient and defeated Christian sects we know only by Churches Fathers. So the real creator of Ultra-Imperialism concept as we know it is Lenin himself.

A convinced Marxist-Leninist may still, with the serious and the ridiculous of such people, use it as a concept or, more likely, like an insult to discards adversity (such as petty-bourgeois, economists, ultra-leftist and so on). But it’s somewhat funny that even non-Leninist use it in the same motive.

The few texts in which Lenin describes Ultra-Imperialism are unclear, made of messy quotes from Kautsky. In “The failure of II^nd International” (1915), Lenin explain that U-I is not something already realized, but an alternative fort the end of war:

1° Strengthen of class contradictions, national hates between finance capitalist, arms race, decadency of capitalism and course to WWII.

Or,

2° Diminution of customs taxes, protectionism, and capital exportation ; tendency to disarmament ; melting between capitalists of various countries, leading to a world exploitation by an united finance capital.

In others texts, Lenin give no others elements about Ultra-Imperialism, and repeat what he already explain, with the same quotes. In “Imperialism and the split in Socialism”, he associates “United States of Europe” slogan to Ultra-Imperialism, and Trotsky to Kautsky… we’re in 1916. The same “Ultra-Imperialist” slogan was adopted by Komintern in 1923!

The first branch of the Lenin U-I alternative was more or less realized, and effectively lead to WWII. But it’s interesting that some parts of the second branch were also more or less realized after WWII : decreasing of customs taxes (more than 90 %) and protectionism, treaties about nuclear weapons, melting of capitalists into a transnational capitalist class (notably in finance sector). Not that U-I is realized just as Lenin thought it, but some tendencies that could be felt in capitalism development are now reality. So, it’s vision of afterwar alternative was somewhat not so bad, but both branches developed one after another. And with the second one, there was no WWIII, even if there was the Cold War, and if decolonisation fights may be local aspects of low intensity WWIII. So… let up Kautsky’s ghost turns back to his grave, Lenin’s mummy to his sarcophagi, and discuss about current questions.

II - Empire

One of the most important aspects of the post WWII capitalism is the multiplication of international structures, more or less under US control – but not exclusively – as UNO, IMF, WB, WTO and so on. We can discuss of their effective role and so on, but not ignore their importance in nowadays capitalism. That’s why I’m rather surprised when Sander write : “The weight of the past, the ruthless traditions of all ruling classes continue to live on in the capitalist class and capitals continue to be national, even as they operate more and more globally - no global structures of political power have as yet replaced the nation-state nor are they emerging.” (in “Why was there (so far) no third World War?”, part 1). Although Sander recognizes (in part 2) that inter-imperialist conflict do not play a major role today in global scale – even if it still run in regional scale, between wanabe regional leaders – he seems to not interest in theses global institutions.

I tend to agree on the fact that “global” is often synonym to “US-controlled”, and this is a big problem in Negri & Hardt’s Empire is that they seems to consider Empire as already realized – what they do not proof – and they consider Empire as really global, as disconnected from US domination, what’s should also be proved from a more consistent way. What’s true is the progressive transfer of sovereignty from “nation” states to an higher level. When an European minister is being asked something, he almost always answers : I can’t do it, it must be treated at EU level. When an African minister is being asked something, he almost always answers : I can’t do it, it’s the IMF exigency. Even if there is a part of hypocrisy, it’s somewhat real : the great political decisions are not local, but continental or global. That’s the background of Empire. So, for the discussion on Imperialism and Empire, I would suggest to try answer theses three questions :

1° Is there a tendency to globalisation of state, by transfer of former “sovereignty” of states ?

2° What’s the link between “globalisation” and “US domination” ? Between Imperialism and Empire ?

3° What role play global institutions (IMF, UNO and so on) in nowadays phase of capitalism ?

In various texts, now gathered in “Left hand of globalisation” pamphlet (in French, but most texts also exist in English), I suggested two things about theses questions, in a more dialectic view:

1° Neoliberalism, as ideology and practice of the capitalist movement, has for objective to destroy institutions linked to former phase of capitalism – providence-state and high level of public debt. But Neoreformism (left ideology) adapts itself to global capital, as a replacement ideology supporting the creation of global welfare institutions and global taxes. It will probably succeed to neoliberalism, as dominant ideology, when its job will be done.

2° One of the main problem for capitalism today is public debt. Money was lend as an anticipation of a future production that realized at a sufficient level – so this money exists nowhere. All states are indebted and try to manage policies of debt reduction (Maastricht criterion in Europe, welfare eradication in US, IMF plan in almost all countries) and war against fiscal evasion.

Note that first aspect leads to a question posed under various way by Negri & Hardt, and by our friends of Robin Goodfellow, about democracy. For RGF, this question is still posed at “national” level – and they seems to think about China, one fifth of humanity – because democracy is a presupposition for communist revolution. This is just, as democracy can’t resume to parliamentarism, but includes possibilities of reunions and demonstration, freedom of press, and so on ; in authoritarian countries like China, as it was for Spain, Portugal, Poland or Iran, worker movement is not dissociable to democratic movement, even if communist movement should take over democracy (more on this in an almost finished pamphlet, “A society without exploitation”). Negri & Hardt pose the democratic question directly as the global level, and predicts more or less than next revolution will be for global democracy. Jacques Wajnsztejn (Critical Times, now associated to our IDN), in a critic of Empire, ended by “550 pages to conclude for democracy…”. But even if Negri has expurged his communism form Leninism and left-nationalism, he has not become an “ultraleftist”… The question, for us, is not : Do we want a global democratic revolution?, but Will there be a global democratic revolution ?, and What role will communist movement in such a revolution?

The second aspect (public debt) is central today, as Argentina revolt demonstrate it. If the “abolition of debt” proposed by social-democracy and catholic church is rather suspect – but a way of recognize that capitalism knows a debt crisis and should find a radical solution, even for its reformists salvers – the slogan ‘this debt isn’t our, we won’t pay state debt” is correct, as a practical critic of state. It lead us to another aspect : as Imperialism / Empire / Globalisation group of question is always an exploration of Private capital / State links, shouldn’t we discuss more precisely on State nature, and, most of all, about “public money” question?

Nico