Barry Sheppard, The Party, The Socialist Workers Party 1960–1988, Volume I: The Sixties, A Political Memoir (Chippendale, Australia: Resistance Books, 2005), 354 pages including index. This volume also includes a rich collection of photographs.

Barry Sheppard, The Party, The Socialist Workers Party 1960–1988, Volume II: Interregnum, Decline and Collapse, 1973–1988, A Political Memoir (London: Resistance Books, no date [2012]), 345 pages including index.

[Both volumes can be ordered from Bolerium Books, 2141 Mission Street, suite 300, San Francisco CA 94110; http://www.bolerium.com; tel. 1-800-326-6353. Volume II is $15, and a set of both volumes is $25; shipping is an additional $3.50 in the U.S. and Canada; $6.00 for other countries. Volume I can also be downloaded for free from: barrysheppardbook.com.]

Note one:

A Third Camp position need not be one of “neutrality” between the belligerent powers. I have always thought of my own Third Camp position as being one of opposition to both imperialist camps. Once this position is taken up, different tasks devolve upon the working class in the various countries, depending on whether the country in question is an imperialist one or an oppressed one.

It should also be noted that, because the USSR had a Stalinist economy and not a capitalist one, Russian was imperialist at that time in the ancient Roman sense rather than the modern Leninist sense. The phenomena were identical on the battlefield and quite similar for the subject peoples, but were driven by different dynamics.”

My reply:

The writer says that in his version of the third camp position, it “need not be one of ‘neutrality’ “ and that “different tasks devolve upon the working class in the various countries, depending on whether the country in question is an imperialist one or an oppressed one.”

As I explained, in the Korean War, those held either third camp view were neutral in the U.S. invasion of Korea and the war against the North and the Chinese army. In the U.S. organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and the Cuban missile crisis, the third camp was also neutral. From what the writer says, he wouldn’t have agreed with the third camp organizations of the time.

I also noted that while the third camp organizations were initially neutral in the U.S. war against Vietnam, by 1968 they had changed their position to be opposed to the U.S. This positive change, and the subsequent positions taken regarding imperialist wars and threats against oppressed nations, defending the oppressed nations, are consonant with the writer’s position. I did note that often this positive position is honored more formally than in practice.

The writer also says that “Russia [I assume he means the USSR, China, etc.] was imperialist… in the ancient Roman sense rather than the modern Leninist sense. The phenomena were identical on the battlefield and quite similar for the subject peoples, but were driven by different dynamics.”

I won’t repeat what I wrote refuting Draper on this point. But the idea that in a world dominated by capitalist imperialism (the twentieth century) anything remotely similar to Roman imperialism could not have existed. It would have been utterly and quickly crushed by capitalist imperialism if it had.

The phenomena of modern capitalist imperialism are not at all “identical” to previous imperialisms.

Lenin took up this idea of mushing together of previous imperialisms and modern capitalist imperialism, because it was raised in his time. In his pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”:

“Colonial policy and imperialism existed before this latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued colonial policy and achieved imperialism. But ‘general’ arguments about imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background the fundamental difference of social-economic systems, inevitably degenerate into absolutely empty banalities, or into grandiloquent comparisons like ‘Greater Rome and Greater Britain.’ Even the colonial policy of capitalism in its previous stages is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital.”

There is another question that the writer doesn’t take up, which is whether Russia and China are imperialist today, which is asserted by many who come from the third camp tradition. It should be noted that everyone agrees that Russia and China are capitalist today, so if they are imperialist they must be so in the Leninist sense.

Note two:

On a different list, Peter S. challenges my assertion that Russia and China are not imperialist. Peter writes:

“I see Russia as imperialist because it meets the Leninist criteria. Its economy is developed enough so that monopoly capital dominates, industrial and banking capital have merged into finance capital, it has a financial oligarchy, it exports capital, as well as goods, on a large scale, it participates in the economic partition of the world, and it participates in the political and military partition of the world when economic measures are not enough.

“China has all these characteristics too, but I’d hesitate to use the term imperialist because so much of the economy is so backward. Perhaps nascent imperialism. There’s nothing standing in the way of China’s becoming an imperialist power except workers’ revolution, if that occurs soon enough. US imperialism cannot block it. China contrasts with India in this regard. The remnants of state control of the economy in China prevent the subordination of the country to imperialism, as is the case with India.”

My reply:

Peter is in agreement with me that in the USSR (including Russia) before the capitalist restoration, there was very little money capital. He also agrees that in the transition, there was not the pre-existing money capital to buy the newly privatized means of production, which were privatized by what amounted to theft, “gangster capitalism.”

Of course, in the subsequent 25 years, capitalism has developed in Russia. Billionaires have arisen. But exactly when did finance capital arise in Russia? Did it take five years to go from zero? Ten years? Has it recently happened after twenty-five years?

Contrary to Peter, I agree with Trotsky’s assertion that if capitalism was restored in the USSR, it would be a very weak capitalism, open to imperialist penetration. That’s what exists today in Russia.

While there are large firms inherited from the USSR, these are not dominated by finance capital.

The development of finance capital, the merging of banking and industrial capital in ordinary capitalism took a long time. If this happened in Russia in five or even twenty-five years, that would have been quite extraordinary. Especially given the overwhelming economic dominance of the U.S.-led already existing imperialist system.

The same question can be asked regarding China. I note that Peter hesitates to say that China is imperialist “because so much of the economy is so backward.” That should give one pause, but is not the main reason why China is not imperialist.

The question is not whether some financial capital has come into existence, or whether Russia or China exports some capital as well as goods. The difference between imperialist countries and exploited countries is the relative weight of these things.

If Russia were imperialist today, we would expect Russian banks to be increasingly prominent in the world, since the great universal banks are the most important organizations of finance capital. The publication Global Finance lists the world’s 50 biggest banks as of 2012 in terms of assets. Despite the size and natural wealth of Russia, not a single Russian bank appears on the list. Neither does any Chinese bank.

According to the Wall Street Journal of January 31 this year, of the world’s 100 biggest banks in terms of assets, only two Russian banks appear, Sherbank and VTB, coming in at 54 and 94 respectively. Sherbank evolved from the old Soviet savings bank. Even today 51 percent of its stock is owned by the Russian central bank. The Russian Federation owns 60.9 percent of VTB. Private capital owns the rest.

In and of itself, the lack of a single Russian bank in the top 50 banks and only two in the top 100, is suggestive of the relative position of Russia to world imperialism.

The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Datebook 2012 divides the countries of the world into four categories according to wealth – not income – per adult. This is a rough proxy for the average amount of financial capital that is owned by individuals in each country, since finance capital – stocks, bonds, money market funds and bank accounts – form the great bulk of wealth in today’s world.
The top group, with over $100.000 average wealth per adult, pretty much defines the traditional imperialist countries. These countries are the United States, Canada, all the countries of Western Europe with the exception of Portugal but none of the East Europe countries. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Israel (which has become imperialist) are also in this top group.

A few countries in this $100,000 plus club don’t fit in the traditional list of imperialist countries. Leaving aside some Arab oil monarchies, which are a special case of non-imperialist countries, there is Taiwan and Ireland. South Korea does not belong to this top group.

The second group have an average wealth level of between $25,000 and $100,000. In this group we find Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Baltic states, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, and a few other Arab oil monarchies. Perhaps only Portugal, which had a colonial empire in Africa until the 1970s might be considered imperialist.

The third group of countries, very poor in finance capital, includes Brazil, Argentina and most of the other Latin American countries; the countries of North Africa; most of Eastern Europe including Poland and Russia; China and Indonesia.

Although Russia and China are in this third group, I doubt that Peter thinks the other countries in this tier are imperialist. Neither is Russia or China.

The fourth tier are the very poorest in finance capital. These include the countries of Central Africa, India, Vietnam, Bolivia and Guyana in South America, and Ukraine. Though Ukraine was among the richest areas of the Soviet Union, it is now among the poorest in finance capital.

Western economic sanctions could put a teetering Russia into the fourth tier.

These rankings are reflections of the extent of finance capital, not of industrial production, standard of living, etc.

What about export of capital? It is true that both Russia and China have greatly increased their foreign direct investment in other countries. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development lists China’s FDI for 2012 at about $510 billion, and Russia’s at $413 billion. Both are eclipsed by Italy and Spain, are less than half of the Netherlands and Switzerland, under one-third of the UK – in spite of being much larger than these countries. The figures for the US are 10 times higher and growing.

And today, even quite backward countries export capital. For example, Thailand’s outward FDI was $460 billion in 2011.

The question again, is not the mere fact of export of capital, but the relative weight compared to the real imperialist countries.

The overwhelming superiority of finance capital in the “traditional” imperialist countries relative to the finance capital of Russia and China means that in the capitalist world market the greater monopoly and financial power of the former sets the terms and prices of trade resulting in unequal trade that economically exploits the latter.

Unequal trade is also a consequence of the greater labor productivity in the imperialist centers.

The imperialist centers exploit Russia and China through other means, too. These centers, first of all the U.S., do this through their control of the world’s financial system, direct investment, and general economic dominance.

Hasn’t globalization resulted a “flat earth” as Thomas Friedman foolishly said? The fact that much manufacturing has been moved to China from the U.S. and other imperialist countries doesn’t mean that China is gaining at the expense of, e.g., the U.S. The imperialist centers, above all the U.S., develop and control high technology. Apple’s iPhones, for example are based on its technology. It’s subsidiary factories in China import high tech components from Apple, which are assembled by low wage workers, and then the finished product is exported to Apple, which controls the sales and distribution. In 2010, Apple imported iPhones for $179 from China, which already includes the prices of the components Apple sold its subsidiaries, and then sold them $600 on the US retail market. Such a markup would be impossible if the Chinese subsidiaries or Chinese capital controlled the high-tech aspects of production. IPhone exports from China to the US in 2009 were $2 billion. Of this, only $73 million went to Apple’s Chinese subsidiaries.

Doesn’t China’s massive holdings of U.S. debt indicate it is imperialist, as some claim? Actually it proves the opposite, China’s relative weakness. Given that this debt is held in dollar terms at virtually zero interest, with every fall of the dollar relative to the yuan China’s holdings lose value. China buys US debt as mere insurance against speculators. It does this because it is locked out of the most profitable activities by the established (real imperialist) multi-national corporations. If China were imperialist, it would use its enormous dollar surplus to buy the best and most advanced capital equipment, technologies and personnel in at least some sectors and start challenging real imperialism in those sectors. Instead, it seeks to protect the value of its dollars as much as it can by buying US debt at zero, below zero or in the best of cases very low returns, not investing in this way. If interest rates rise on U.S. Treasury bonds in the
future, this will be roughly offset by inflation of the dollar.

There have been important changes since Lenin (and many others along the same lines) wrote about imperialism. (I’m in this reply not taking up the massive colonial revolution and the blows it has dealt to imperialism, and most certainly will do again.) In 1914, the modern imperialism characterized by finance capital etc. was still intermixed with the imperialism of an earlier epoch. This was most evident in Czarist Russia, and it also characterized the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The world had been carved up by the imperialist powers. Their rivalry and conflict led to the First World War. Out of that war came the collapse of the Hapsburg Empire, and the overthrow of Czarism and then capitalism in Russia. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism remained and developed outside of the USSR. This led to the Second World War. On the imperialist side, the main victor, over allied and axis imperialisms both, was U.S. imperialism.

In place of the intense inter-imperialist rivalries that led to the two World Wars, a new situation emerged, with the US as the unchallenged military and economic hegemony over the other imperialist powers. The US also moved to the center of technology in the introduction of semi-automated production and then the widespread computerization. It is no accident that NSA’s computer spy capability dwarfs all others. The US’s technological power is a result of its huge economic resources exemplified by its preponderance of finance capital.

The other core imperialist powers became U.S. vassals, still imperialist but subordinate to the US. A system of military and other alliances and treaties formalized this reality. With the collapse of the USSR and the reintroduction of capitalism in China (but not the old landlordism that the Chinese revolution destroyed) the US-dominated system has sought to penetrate the former Soviet bloc with important success, bringing into NATO many East Europe countries, including non-imperialist ones. That is the meaning of the drive to absorb Ukraine into the European Union and if possible, NATO. A longer goal is to subordinate capitalist but non-imperialist Russia. Russia is resisting.

Imperialist economic penetration into China has occurred, of the type described. Obama’s “Shift to Asia” is designed to push further into the region.

This U.S.-dominated imperialist system may be upset in the future, due to uneven and combined development, but it is what we have in 2014.

Peter says that Russia’s imperialist character is also shown, in addition to what I’ve already discussed, by its participation in the “economic partition of the world, and it participates in the political and military partition of the world when economic measures are not enough.”

Trying to make its own trading blocs is not evidence of imperialism. Are the trading blocs being made in Latin America and the Caribbean to gain some space from imperialism evidence that these countries are imperialist?

That Russia is trying to militarily rearrange the world in the face of the overwhelming military might of the US, which is more powerful than the militaries of all the rest of the world together, including Russia and China, is a fantasy. Russia and China have nuclear weapons, which has prevented all out war by the US against them, but this doesn’t constitute trying to militarily rearrange the world. The annexation of Crimea by Russia to keep its naval base out of NATO’s hands and the skirmishes with Georgia hardly amount to that.

http://rogerannis.com/discussion-on-21st-century-imperialism-are-russia-and-china-imperialist/

The Russia as ‘imperialist’ thesis is wrong and a barrier to solidarity with the Ukrainian and Russian people

By Roger Annis, June 18, 2014, first published on Truthout

The violent coming to power of a rightist regime in Kyiv, Ukraine in late February 2014 has opened an exceptionally dangerous political period in Europe. For the first time since World War Two, a European government has representatives of fascist parties as ministers. These are the ministers of the armed forces, prosecution service and agriculture, and deputy ministers of national security (police), education and anti-corruption.

‘Mainstream’ parties alongside the fascists in government, including the elected president, are committed to an austerity project of economic association with Europe that will see much of the manufacturing base of the country further degraded or dismantled. The consequences for agricultural production are also likely to be dire.

The Kyiv regime has launched a civil war in the southeast of the country to quash popular movements demanding political and economic autonomy for their regions.

Elsewhere in the country, the government or the fascist parties and militias allied to it are seriously repressing the right of political association and expression.

A new and harrowing account of the war being waged by the Kyiv regime in the east is published in The Guardian on June 17. It reports that cities are being strafed and shelled daily. Hundreds have died and tens of thousands have lost access to water and electricity. Tens of thousands have been driven from their homes in the southeast regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos has delivered a report to the UN Security Council containing serious concerns about the situation.

Two Russian reporters were killed in a mortar attack near the city of Luhansk on June 17. [See this June 20 report by BBC on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the southeast.]

In Kyiv on June 14, a mob attacked the Russian embassy and damaged the building. Some members of the UN Security Council, including Lithuania, blocked a resolution condemning the attack, which followed the shooting down of a Ukraine military transport plane over the city of Luhansk earlier that same day. All 49 airmen and soldiers on board died, dealing a huge blow to the war offensive and the morale of those militia volunteers or conscript soldiers prosecuting it.

Petro Poroshenko is a billionaire who was elected president on May 25 in an election that saw a 25 per cent decline in voter participation compared to the last election in 2010. Touted as a ‘man of peace’ by a deluded and deeply compromised western media, he is taking the regime’s civil war and repression to new heights of violence.

The repression and civil war follow the humbling referendum decision by the majority of the people of the Crimea region in March to secede from Ukraine.

The regime’s actions are fully backed by the governments of the NATO military alliance. They are providing key training and hardware to the Ukraine army and to the rightist and fascist militias that are directing the army or fighting alongside it. They have dispatched their own soldiers, fighter aircraft and warships to Ukraine’s neighbouring countries and ocean waters. NATO threatens the autonomy movements and the working class and nations as a whole of Ukraine and Russia.

All of this presents a huge responsibility for progressive forces in the world to mobilize against the violence in Ukraine and protest our own governments’ collusion. Yet, most liberal and moderate left forces in Europe and North America are turning a blind eye to events. More disquieting still, many on the radical left are cautious and hesitant. Campaigns such as ‘Solidarity with the Antifascist Resistance in Ukraine’ in Britain are too rare and need to be emulated.

What explains the hesitations? There are several reasons, but two overriding ones are a misreading of the political and economic forces that are driving the conflict, and a fear of association with the Russia government being near-universally labeled by western governments and their propaganda machines as an aggressor. It is vital to set the record straight on both counts.

Russia ‘imperialism’ and the Ukraine conflict

Much of left commentary in the west and in Ukraine and Russia presents Russia and its economic elite as ‘imperialist’. To their credit, many on the left nonetheless identify the NATO powers and Ukraine’s billionaire elite as the aggressors in the Ukraine conflict and are speaking out against it. This is in the best tradition of the movement ten years ago against the war waged by the U.S. against Iraq. At that time, it was correctly argued that the reactionary essence of Saddam Hussein and his regime was no excuse not to protest the war. Today, whatever one’s appreciation of Russian president Vladimir Putin and the government he leads, there is an elementary duty for lefts and progressive to speak out against the Kyiv regime’s bloody war.

But that’s apparently a hard decision for some to make in the face of the vast propaganda campaign saying that Russia is aiding and abetting ‘pro-Russian separatists’ in eastern Ukraine and may even be poised to invade and seize Ukrainian territory.

The false depictions of Russia have a ring of credibility for some. After all, don’t some of the autonomy fighters voice sympathy for joining the Russian Federation? Isn’t there a tragic history of Great Russian domination of the Ukrainian nation? Didn’t Russia (or its Soviet predecessor) invade and pummel the small nations of Afghanistan and Chechnya not so long ago?

It’s important to view the regime/NATO violence in Ukraine an assault against all the peoples of the broader region—not just Ukrainians but also Russians and other nationalities and republics. The assault builds upon the successes of far right political forces which came to control and divert the ‘Maidan’ protest movement of late 2013/early 2014.

A new and highly informative article by Viktor Shapinov of the Borotba political association in Ukraine (translated by Renfrey Clarke and available here) argues that the Maidan movement was fundamentally conservative and nationalist in its political and social outlook, making it all the easier for the far right to come to dominate it

Shapinov writes:

By January [2014], the ideological and political content of the Maidan was obvious to any unprejudiced observer. At that time, we characterised what was occurring as “a liberal-nationalist revolt with increasingly noticeable participation by the openly nazi elements of the Right Sector”…

The Euromaidan is thus a movement initiated and controlled by the largest oligarchs. Its political base consists of radical nationalists and to a lesser degree of pro-Western liberals, while its social base is made up of petty-bourgeois and declassed elements.

By contrast, the resistance movement in the southeast is more proletarian in its composition…

What about Russia’s territorial designs on Ukraine? The evidence doesn’t add up. All the fear-mongering of a Russian military intervention has clearly been misleading and deceptive. Russia has withdrawn its military forces from the Ukraine border. It counsels moderation to the autonomy movements and says it won’t supply them militarily. It is engaged in talks with a regime in Kyiv waging war along Russia’s own border. Hardly the conduct of an aggressor.

What about Crimea? Wasn’t that an imperialist takeover? Emphatically no. The appendix below summarizes the secession vote in March of this year and its aftermath. It was the first time in history that the peoples of that region had an opportunity to vote on their political status.

Russia as imperialist?

More deeply, the claims of Russia as ‘imperialist’ are disproven by the empirical, economic and political evidence.

The role of finance capital is the benchmark of any measure of the core nature of a capitalist country. In Russia, it is nothing resembling that of the imperialist countries. It’s the state, not finance capital, which plays the overriding, directing role in Russia’s economy. The state happens to own much of the vaunted oil and gas industries; so too in finance and much of manufacturing. The CIA Factbook explains some of the consequences thusly: “The protection of property rights is still weak and the private sector remains subject to heavy state interference.”

Russia’s recent economic history belies the ‘imperialist label. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, its constituent republics experienced economic contractions unprecedented in post-World War Two history. The collapse rivaled that of global economic slump of the 1930s. Life expectancy of citizens of the ‘new’ Russia, for example, declined sharply. So did the new country’s social welfare infrastructure, including health care, post-secondary education, seniors’ pensions, protection for disabled people, etc. Much of the former Soviet Union’s developed industries disappeared or shrank to shadows of their former selves.

The only thing that saved Russia from the fate of former Soviet republics such as Ukraine (whose per capita GDP today is one fourth that of Russia) was its vast reserves of petroleum, natural gas and precious and rare earth minerals. These found markets in the imperialist countries and in China. But again, according to the CIA Factbook, “Russia’s reliance on commodity exports makes it vulnerable to boom and bust cycles that follow the volatile swings in global prices. The government since 2007 has embarked on an ambitious program to reduce this dependency and build up the country’s high technology sectors, but with few visible results so far.”

Russia has used revenues from oil and gas exports to keep major industries operating. A few are, sort of, globally competitive—including aerospace, armaments and metallurgy. But while its per capita GDP may be well above that of Ukraine and other, former Soviet republics, it’s not in the same league, by a long shot, of the imperialist countries. It is roughly one fourth, or less, that of North American and west European countries. It is higher than Brazil’s but a lot lower than Portugal’s and just over half of South Korea’s.

What about Russia’s capital exports, another key indicator of whether a country sits in the ranks of imperialist countries? In 2012, the stock of foreign direct investment in Russia was $498 billion while the stock of investment abroad was $387 billion. Compare this to Canada, with about one quarter the population of Russia: $992 billion (domestic), $992 billion (abroad). Or Britain, with less than half of Russia’ population: $1.3 trillion and $1.8 trillion, respectively (all figures are 2012, from the CIA Factbook).

Russia’s neighbor China is another candidate, for some, of the ‘imperialist’ descriptor. Its manufacturing base is much more extensive than that of Russia. But like Russia, the role of finance capital in directing the economy is not comparable to that in the imperialist countries. The state plays the preponderant role, including majority ownership of many enterprises. The imbalance between domestic and foreign investment is greater in China than in Russia–$1.2 trillion (domestic) and $532 billion (abroad). There are no Chinese banks of global stature, though they are growing domestically.

Chinese manufacturing depends on infusions of U.S. and other imperialist capital and technology. It is hugely dependent on access to the markets of imperialist countries for sales of the products it manufactures. And what does China do with its trade surpluses, except to buy US treasury notes? The net result is that China is paying an annual tribute to the capitalists of the imperialist countries. That is hardly characteristic of an imperialist power, a nuclear-armed one to boot. It is, rather, a sign of dependency.

A U.S. economist writes

For all the trend to describe Russia as ‘imperialist’, little substantive analysis has been written to try and prove the claim. All the more welcome, then, is a new essay by U.S. Marxist economist Sam Williams. He has recently published a 30-page essay on his website blog, ‘A Critique of Crisis Theory’. The headline of the essay asks, ‘Is Russia imperialist?’ The answer Williams provides is a resounding ‘no’. Here are some excerpts:

The countries that are richest in finance capital—not necessarily richest in industrial capital—are the imperialist countries that economically exploit all other capitalist countries in the world…

In a country rich in finance capital, there is in addition to the extremely rich people found in all capitalist countries—for example, the Russian and Ukrainian ‘oligarchs’–there is a large ‘middle class’ of ‘modest savers’. This middle class comes to include the more privileged upper levels of the working class, who may own some mutual funds or be beneficiaries of pension funds through various job-related retirement plans [and, importantly, who are owners of real estate]…

What is the relative position of Russian banks today? If Russia today is not only capitalist, which it indeed is, but also imperialist, we would expect Russian banks to be increasingly prominent in the world, since the “great” universal banks are the most important organizations of finance capital. The publication Global Finance lists the world’s 50 biggest banks as of 2012 in terms of assets. Despite the size and natural wealth of Russia, not a single Russian bank appears on the list…

According to the Jan. 31, 2014, Wall Street Journal, based on assets of the world’s 100 biggest banks, only two Russian banks, OAO Sberbank and OAO VTB, appear. They come in at number 54 and 94, respectively. Sberbank evolved from the old Soviet savings bank system—in Russian, Sberbank means savings bank. Even today, 51 percent of its stock is owned by the Russian central bank, which itself is state owned. According to Wikipedia, the Russian Federation state owns 60.9 percent of OAO VTB. While both banks today are universal banks, they are still quasi—state enterprises…

The Crédit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2012 [link] divides the countries of the world into four categories according to wealth—not income—per adult. This is a rough proxy for the average amount of finance capital that is owned by individuals in each country, since finance capital—stocks, bonds, money market funds and bank accounts—form the great bulk of wealth in today’s world…

The top group, with over U.S. $100,000 average wealth per adult, pretty much defines the imperialist countries, including the “white colony” of Israel. These countries are the United States—no surprise here—Canada, all the countries of Western Europe with the exception of Portugal but none of the East European countries. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are also among the countries in the top group…

Today’s Russia is very far indeed from becoming an imperialist country, and, if anything, is in danger of falling into the fourth tier where Ukraine already is.

Williams goes on to explain that a defining feature of imperialism in today’s world is its military alliances. The four, big, imperialist military alliances are NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), ANZUS (Australia-New Zealand-United States Security Treaty–1951), SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization–1954), NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command). To this can be added the ‘Five Eyes’ spying alliance of the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Where are the comparable alliances of Russia and China? They do not exist.

Williams provides a specific example of the extensive deindustrialization that has beset the republics of the former Soviet Union, choosing the city of Konstantinovka in Ukraine. Less than 30 years ago, the city employed 15,000 workers in its glass factories. Today, there are fewer than 600 workers. He goes on to write:

What many of the workers involved in the anti-Maidan movement [in eastern Ukraine] want is not simply the reversal of the February [2014] coup in Kiev. What they really want is the restoration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This is shown by the Soviet flags that compete with the tri-color flags of the bourgeois Russian Republic and the double eagles of the Russian nationalists, the complaints of Western correspondents about widespread “Soviet nostalgia”, and the defense of the statues of Lenin…

And this is why the anti-Maidan movement is such a threat not only to imperialism but to Russian capitalists and their representative, Vladimir Putin. This explains why Moscow is doing everything it can to cool down the movement.

The only real solution to the Ukraine crisis is the restoration of workers’ power and workers’ ownership of the means of production through a revived Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which itself must inevitably be part of a still broader movement that will ultimately involve the workers of the entire world.

National defense of Ukraine and Russia

If the foregoing analysis is correct–that Russia is not imperialist and is, rather, a hybrid capitalist state and economy–then the resistance to capitalist and NATO penetration of Ukraine and ultimately Russia assumes an important dimension of national defense that Marxists and other progressives need to recognize and voice. It behooves an international solidarity movement to oppose the violence of the Kyiv/NATO war and the specific threats against the Ukrainian and Russian nations. Just as was done during the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and as is needed in the face of the ongoing imperialist threats against Iran.

Such an approach counters the harmful ‘plague on both your houses’ attitude that makes a false equivalency between the threats of imperialism and the actions of the Russian government. That attitude is an obstacle to the elementary obligation to defend those who come under attack by imperialism and risks serving as a cover for betrayal.

Recognition of the regime in Russia as less than imperialist does not diminish the crucial importance for the peoples of Russia and eastern Europe to struggle against capitalism and fight for socialism. On the contrary, it provides fertile ground to forge alliances with those who, while not yet convinced of the need for socialism, are opposed to war and fascism and defend the national rights of countries under attack by imperialism.

* * *

3. My comment posted on Truthout June 18:

I appreciate Dave Argo’s comment. The quotation I selected from the excellent essay by Sam Williams is prone to misunderstanding. Williams wrote, “The only real solution to the Ukraine crisis is the restoration of workers’ power and workers’ ownership of the means of production through a revived Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which itself must inevitably be part of a still broader movement that will ultimately involve the workers of the entire world.”

I think the operative word here is “revived”. Few serious Marxists or socialists today would deny that the ‘socialism’ of the former USSR (and let’s throw in China and East Europe, too) was profoundly flawed, and worse. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Sam Williams (who I do not know) would agree. I chose to highlight that quotation in order to be clear that I do not think today’s globalized capitalism, including the austerity Europe on offer to the Ukraine people, can do anything but take us further towards societal and environmental breakdown. I believe that only socialism–by which I mean a human, democratic and environmental system of rational planning and development can bring us back from the abyss.

For all of their flaws, and there are many, I believe that at bottom, the autonomy movements in the east and south of Ukraine fundamentally express aspirations for a peaceful and just society. I am certain, including because Ukrainian colleagues tell me so, that such sentiments are shared in western Ukraine, too, though they are getting drowned out for now by the violence and intimidation of the rightist militias and the booming of artillery shells fired toward the east.

Three things, principally, led to the failure and downfall of socialism in the USSR. There are many reasons to hope and believe they will not be repeated in present or future socialist experiments. One, by the time that the Civil War of 1918-21 ended (waged, as it was, by the ousted Czarist regime and its many, many imperialist backers), much of economic and social infrastructure of the future USSR was destroyed. Two, the chances of forging meaningful economic alliances with wealthier countries were dashed by the string of defeats of revolutionary uprisings in Europe, most notably in Germany. Instead, the new country faced a stark and ruthless isolation by teh imperialist powers. And three, Russia and the neighbouring republics which came together to create the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics inherited a low cultural level from Czarism (by which I mean high illiteracy, little formal experience with democratic institutions and an underdeveloped or non-existent social service infrastructure, including public education). So the construction of socialism was begun on extremely difficult and rudimentary foundations.

Capitalism rules according to the ‘whip’–greed, profit and blind laws of limitless expansion of production of ‘things’ for sale and purchase. Socialism proposes that the individual and the societal collective will strive not only to meet material needs but also to achieve vastly improved scientific, cultural and spiritual goals. All this will occur within the parameters of the deepening global warming emergency. Only a vigorous democracy, including the fullest participation of the individual, can ensure good outcomes. The lessons of earlier experiences are vital for avoiding a repeat past shortfalls or failures.

All this said, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was something of a miracle, and easily the most important event of the 20th century (not forgetting, also, China’s momentous revolution of 1949). The October Revolution put an end overnight to the horrors of WW1 for the Russian worker and peasant. It led to immediate independence for some republics (Finland, Baltic states) and to a myriad of experiments in self determination for others. The October Revolution granted land to the serfs and peasants and it instituted the most far-reaching measures of womens’ equality that the world had seen. It inspired hundreds of millions around the globe with the hope of a liberated future.

Alas, the experiment was short-lived. The times were exceptionally harsh and the mistakes were costly and without mercy. But we are seeing a “revival” of socialism for some time now in Latin America, since Cuba’s revolution in 1959 and accelerating in the past decade. I hope this regional ‘bad example’ will keep moving forward and spreading. Otherwise, I fear for our collective future.

4. Comment by Chris Slee and my reply, August 2014

Aug 30, 2014–The following is my reply to a published comment by Australian socialist Chris Slee on Aug. 21 concerning my article of June 18, 2014, ‘The Russia as ‘imperialist thesis is wrong and a barrier to solidarity with the Ukrainian and Russia peoples‘. Chris Slee’s comment and my reply appeared in the ‘comments’ section of my article as posted to Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal. Both texts are enclosed below.

Panicked threats from Kyiv and NATO are mounting significantly as Kyiv’s military offensive against the people of eastern Ukraine has begun to rapidly crumble in recent days. The weak response in western imperialist countries to NATO’s ramped-up moves against Russia, incluidng positioning more military forces in eastern Europe, is a reminder of how fatally disorienting for a potential antiwar movement has been the mistaken thesis that Russia is an ‘imperialist’ power and that it has imperial ambitions over Ukraine.
–RA

* * *

Comment by Roger Annis, Aug 29, 2014:

Chris Slee’s commentary posted to Green Left listserve ten days ago against my original article arguing why Russia should not be considered to be an imperialist power is welcome. The international left needs some vigorous debate and exposé of the issues that are raised.

That said, I am unconvinced by his argument. Here is my brief rejoinder.

Finance capital

Let me start this reply with a contextualization. Chris writes, “Roger Annis argues that Russia cannot be imperialist because of the alleged weakness of Russian banks”. The precise nature and role of Russia’s banks is only part of my argument, and I don’t say they are “weak” I said they’re not in the same league as those of the big imperialist countries.

Chris’ argument elevating Russia’s Sberbank into the league of imperialist banking outfits is not sustained by the numbers. The Canadian Banking Association places Sberbank at #54 of the 150 top banks in the world by assets in 2012. SNL Financialgives it the same ranking in 2013. Contrary to Chris’ claim that Sberbank rivals the large European banks, it is a minor player, one quarter the size of the largest German, UK and French banks and only half or less the size of the largest banks of Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and even Sweden. It’s smaller than Denmark’s largest bank and smaller than the top four Australian banks.

The only other Russian bank in the top 150 is VTB at #92. By contrast to the Russian banks, Brazil’s Banco do Brasil comes in at #45. The next largest Brazilian bank comes in at #55, and the next two come in at #65 and #74. So would Chris’ criteria have us elevate Brazilian banks into the ‘imperialist’ ranking?

In that case, we would also need to elevate the Korean banks. There are seven in the top 111, according to the CBA.

Singapore comes in with three banks in the top 100. Hmm, this is getting out of hand. India comes in with two banks in the top 147. Obviously, banking assets alone do not provide the definitive criteria we seek.

Military alliances

Let’s move on to another important criteria that I listed in my article to characterize imperialist countries—the tight military and espionage alliances which characterize them. Most readers of this commentary will be familiar with the NATO and SATO military alliances. There are a host of additional, lesser-known military alliances through which the imperialist countries rule the world. NORAD and ANZA come to mind, and there are lots more.

To the directly military alliances we can add the decades-old ‘Five Eyes” spying alliance, of which most of us only became aware thanks to the valiant work of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and other members of their team. And there are the economic clubs, notably the G7, as well as the big financial institutions such as the IMF where decisions are made on how the world is to be run.

To the formidable array of powerful military alliances, Chris would have us consider a rival “imperialist” alliance of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This is not convincing. He says, “Obviously this alliance is much weaker than NATO”. That’s an understatement, but there is something else at play which likewise makes a comparison between the two inappropriate. The Russian-initiated alliance is dedicated to national defense, not to predatory expansion. It’s not in the same universe, leave alone league, as the NATOs of the world.

As an alliance for national defense, the member countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation present a formidable military obstacle to the imperialists. That narrow aspect of the alliance is a good thing for the workers of the world. Yes, any capitalist military alliance that can be wielded against working class rebellions bodes badly for workers and farmers, but such is the complexity of the dialectic that CSTO embodies contradictory dynamics. A rival to the real imperialist alliances CSTO is not.

Social consensus

Chris has omitted any rejoinder to my argument, inspired by the research of Sam Williams, that the relative social and economic status of the different social classes in a given country is an important measure of its imperialist status or not. The per capita personal wealth of Russian people is only a fraction of that of the people of imperialist countries, placing Russia in the league of countries such as Brazil and South Korea. This has not unimportant political consequences for the dynamic of the class struggle in imperialist versus non-imperialist countries. In their home countries, the imperialist ruling classes obtain a degree of middle class and working class consensus for capitalist rule by virtue of the material stake that those secondary tiers of social classes acquire through their pension plans, ownership of real estate, stock market investments and a host of other webs.

Export of capital

Chris has declined to comment on my comparison of the degree and proportion of the movement of capital in and out of Russia compared to imperialist countries. The relatively low level of capital export by Russia is another factor weighing against a definition of Russia as ‘imperialist’.

Industry and agriculture

I am hoping that researchers more qualified than I will examine and publish the characteristics and dynamics of the Russian economy. I believe these will confirm my argument and that of others that Russia is a middle capitalist power, not an imperialist one.

One of these characteristics is the very great dependence of Russia’s economy and state budget on the export of natural resources.

Another is the relative underdevelopment of Russian agriculture. A comparison of agricultural production between imperialist Canada and Russia is very striking. The two countries resemble each other a great deal geographically. But whereas Canada exported $46 billion in agricultural products in 2013 (Statistics Canada), the comparable figure for Russia in 2010 was $6 billion. That same year, Russia imported $31 billion in food products; for Canada in 2013 it was $35 billion. Even accounting for the different years and possibly different measures, the figures describe two very different realities. Russia’s population is four times that of Canada’s.

An examination of the technological levels of Russia’s industry and manufacturing will likely show similar, large gaps with its imperialist rivals.

I can’t help but conclude that Chris’ argument is based on a flawed methodology. He begins with an assertion that Russia is ‘imperialist’ and then proceeds to find proof, rather unsuccessfully as it turns out. A more rigorous Marxist approach would be to examine Russia free of pre-determined conclusion and then see what the facts tell us. I believe I have done that more successfully than Chris.

Comment by Chris Slee, Aug. 21, 2014:

I have argued in an earlier article that Russia is an imperialist power. My reasons included the growth of Russian monopoly capitalist corporations, their increasing investments in other countries, Russia’s domination of the now formally independent countries that were previously part of the Soviet Union, the presence of Russian military bases in many of these countries and in Syria, etc.

Roger Annis argues that Russia cannot be imperialist because of the alleged weakness of Russian banks. He quotes Sam Williams, who says: “The countries that are richest in finance capital – not necessarily richest in industrial capital – are the imperialist countries that economically exploit all other capitalist countries in the world…

“What is the relative position of Russian banks today? If Russia today is not only capitalist, which it indeed is, but also imperialist, we would expect Russian banks to be increasingly prominent in the world, since the ‘great’ universal banks are the most important organizations of finance capital. The publication Global Finance lists the world’s 50 biggest banks as of 2012 in terms of assets. Despite the size and natural wealth of Russia, not a single Russian bank appears on the list…

“According to the Jan. 31, 2014, Wall Street Journal, based on assets of the world’s 100 biggest banks, only two Russian banks, OAO Sberbank and OAO VTB, appear. The come in at number 54 and 94, respectively. Sberbank evolved from the old Soviet savings bank system – in Russian, Sberbank means savings bank. Even today, 51 percent of its stock is owned by the Russian central bank, which itself is state owned. According to Wikipedia,, the Russian Federation state owns 60.9 percent of OAO VTB. While both banks today are universal banks, they are still quasi-state enterprises”.

Russian finance capital started from a low base, due to the collapse of the Russian economy in the 1990s (a collapse brought on by “shock therapy” – the economic policies adopted in order to intimidate and atomise the working class so that it would be unable to successfully resist the restoration of capitalism).

However, the Russian economy has been recovering in recent years, and finance capital has been developing very rapidly. Michael Probsting has documented this in detail (see http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia). I will merely discuss the specific case of Sberbank.

Today Sberbank is the 33rd largest bank in the world, according to “The Banker” magazine. (The figures cited by Williams put Sberbank a bit further down the list. I am not qualified to judge whose figures are the most accurate, or the most relevant.)

According to The Banker, Sberbank is the third largest bank in Europe, and the biggest in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Sberbank is extending its influence beyond Russia. In 2011 Sberbank acquired an Austrian bank (Volksbank International AG) which owned banks in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Ukraine, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. (source: Wikipedia) In 2013, Sberbank bought a Turkish bank.

Wiliams seems to think that partial state ownership of the Russian banking system is somehow incompatible with Russia being an imperialist power. This is not the case.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Bank, which used to be wholly owned by the federal government, was the biggest bank in the country, and there were also several banks owned by state governments. This did not prevent Australia from being an imperialist country. (The government owned banks were privatised with the onset of the neoliberal era)

Russia is a relatively weak imperialist power, but one which is seen as a potential challenger by the longer established imperialist powers (especial the United States and Western Europe).

The US and the European Union have been trying to draw the countries of Eastern Europe (including Ukraine) into their orbit. Russia has been trying to counter this. Russia tried to draw Ukraine into the “Eurasian Economic Community”, a grouping of former Soviet states led by Russia. The overthrow of the Yanukovich government by Western backed forces prevented this from happening.

Williams argues that because Russia does not have a system of military alliances comparable to Western alliances such as NATO, it cannot be an imperialist power. In fact, Russia has initiated the Collecitve Security Treaty Organisation, which includes Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. ( See http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia)

Obviously this alliance is much weaker than NATO. But this just reflects the fact that Russia is a relatively weak imperialist power.

What are the implications of this analysis for the struggle in Eastern Ukraine?

Recognizing Russia as an imperialist power does not mean dismissing the “anti-Maidan” forces in Eastern Ukraine as agents of Russian imperialism. Boris Kagarlitsky’s most recent article ( http://links.org.au/node/ 4008 ) makes it clear that while the Russian state is trying to control the movement, it has not up to now been totally successful. The movement includes diverse forces, and there has been a “growing political radicalisation within the movement”, with calls for the nationalisation of the property of oligarchs, and for reforms in the interests of workers. The Russian government has been using the threat of withholding aid as a lever to impose a more rightwing leadership.

This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect an imperialist power to do.

http://rogerannis.com/the-russia-as-imperialist-thesis-is-wrong-and-a-barrier-to-solidarity-with-the-ukrainian-and-russian-people/

2 thoughts on “Discussion on 21st century imperialism: Are Russia and China ‘imperialist’?”

Ian says:

27/10/2018 at 12:38

Excellent material that shows the real position of Russia and China in the world pecking order.

The sheer size of China’s population can give rise to impressionism when figures are bandied around. Some of the absolute magnitudes that have been bandied about in this discussion correspond to that population size. But when they are dealt with on a per-capita basis, a very different picture emerges, as this analysis vividly shows.

China has become more relatively powerful because of its sheer size and the impetus that the deformed workers state gave to its economic development. Ironically it was the deformed workers state that created the conditions for Chinese unification and for its capitalism to flourish. But even despite this paradox, it is not possible for semi-colonies like China was before 1949 to escape from systematic underdevelopment and a subordinate position in the world without world proletarian revolution.

The ‘China is imperialist’ position contradicts that and in a way cuts against the permanent revolution as one of the driving forces of world revolution.

Surely if the largest semi-colony in the world by population can escape from subordination and join the imperialist club, then any backward country can do it? In a way that vindicates Stalinism and Maoism, in that it says that they did liberate the Chinese people from imperialist subordination without the aid of the world revolution. Never mind that the psuedo-socialism proved expendable and the gains of the Chinese revolution just served as a springboard to transform semi-colonial China into an imperialist power.

This has programmatic implications that make socialism and the world revolution surplus to requirements in a way. Or at least it has the potential to act as an anti-socialist drag on the consciousness of comrades whose views on other issues are infused with the subjective desire to overthrow capitalism.

It is not possible for China or any other semi-colonial country to escape from imperialist oppression without the overthrow of capitalism in the imperialist heartlands. The deformed workers state was able to advance China from Somalia-like chaos under the Kuomintang to the most powerful semi-colony in the world, whose sheer magnitude makes it appear a competitor to US imperialism in some spheres.

But it is still a subordinate, oppressed country in terms of its position in the world economy and it is still the duty of revolutionaries in the imperialist countries to defend it against imperialism, as part of a joint fight with the workers and oppressed masses of all semi-colonies, including China, for the world revolution.

LikeLiked by 1 person

China is not an imperialists state | Socialist Fight says:

30/10/2018 at 20:42

[…] [4] A Socialist In Canada, Writings by Roger Annis; https://socialistfight.com/2018/10/27/discussion-on-21st-century-imperialism-are-russia-and-china-im… […]

LikeLike

	socialistfight on The rise of the politics of St…
	viriato on The legislative elections in…
	viriato on Neither the plague (Macron) no…
	socialistfight on Pro-Imperialist Left, RCIT, LF…
	Viriato on Neither the plague (Macron) no…

Socialist Fight

Discussion on 21st century imperialism: Are Russia and China ‘imperialist’?

Barry Sheppard, The Party, The Socialist Workers Party 1960–1988, Volume I: The Sixties, A Political Memoir (Chippendale, Australia: Resistance Books, 2005), 354 pages including index. This volume also includes a rich collection of photographs.

Note one:

My reply:

Note two:

My reply:

The Russia as ‘imperialist’ thesis is wrong and a barrier to solidarity with the Ukrainian and Russian people

Russia as imperialist?

A U.S. economist writes

National defense of Ukraine and Russia

See also the following four items:

3. My comment posted on Truthout June 18:

4. Comment by Chris Slee and my reply, August 2014

Comment by Roger Annis, Aug 29, 2014:

Finance capital

Military alliances

Social consensus

Export of capital

Industry and agriculture

Comment by Chris Slee, Aug. 21, 2014:

What are the implications of this analysis for the struggle in Eastern Ukraine?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

2 thoughts on “Discussion on 21st century imperialism: Are Russia and China ‘imperialist’?”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

WRP Explosion

WRP Explosion

Search Socialist Fight items and articles

Socialist Fight magazine

In Defence Of Trotskyism

Socialist Labour

Links

Irish Republican Prisoners Support Group

Grass Roots Left

Recent Comments

WRP Explosion

Socialist Fight

Recent Comments

Grass Roots Left

In Defence Of Trotskyism

Irish Republican Prisoners Support Group

Links

Socialist Fight magazine

Socialist Fight Pamphlets

Socialist Labour

Trotskyist History