Fracción Trotskista Cuarta Internacional

Revolution and counterevolution in Venezuela

Gustavo Dunga — 2009-06-08T15:38:58Z

The situation in Venezuela is extremely tense and dramatic. On December 2, the big employers grouped in FEDECAMARAS and the bureaucracy of the CTV (Workers' Confederation of Venezuela) launched their 'general strike' (in fact a lock-out organised by the employers and the trade union leaders) aimed at forcing Chávez either to bring forward the elections, or to call a referendum on whether or not he should continue in office, or, in the worst case, hoping that economic chaos will create the conditions for a new military coup. Nearly a month after the action began, in his New Year's speech, Carlos Ortega - a union bureaucrat and the spokesman for the 'Coordinadora Democrática', in which the opposition forces are gathered - announced that "the strike continues until we get rid of Chávez", and called for civil disobedience through not paying taxes.

However, in the last days of the year, the government seems to have resumed the political initiative. A symptom of this is the recovery by the Navy and the police of several oil tankers belonging to the state oil company (PDVSA) anchored in various ports of the country and the import of foods to cope with the shortage caused by the employers' boycott. In turn, the military General Staff has sworn loyalty to Chávez.

But the crisis is still far from a solution. This is because the forces of reaction are striking at the heart of Venezuela, that is, the strategic oil industry. Senior and middle management and oil tanker captains from PDVSA are the brains behind this plan. According to several reports from the international press, the main refineries of Venezuela, like those of Paraguaná and El Palito, are paralysed. In Cabello and Maracaibo, the two main ports, tankers remained at anchor. An oil company manager on strike, Horacio Medina, stated that Venezuela's oil production has fallen by 70%, about 1.9 million barrels a day, as a consequence of the strike. In turn, the managers of the gas extraction district of Anaco, about 300 kilometres to the east of Caracas, which generates 75% of the country's gas, agreed to reduce production to the minimum level. According to government officials, the losses are up to 1,300 million dollars and the country faced with huge fines because of its non-fulfilment of international oil export commitments.

The forces of counterrevolution knew how to hit where it really hurts because Venezuela is the fifth largest exporter of oil in the world and 80% of its revenues come from oil sales, and currently foreign sales are still paralysed.

These dramatic days are part of the opposition's offensive to establish an overtly pro-imperialist regime in order to re-colonise Venezuela and turn it into a base for reaction in South America. This follows the rise of governments like those of Lula in Brazil and Gutiérrez in Ecuador, which show the retreat of the neo-liberal right wing. After the defeat of the pro-imperialist coup by the General Staff and Carmona in April 2002, there have been continual attempts by the opposition to displace Chávez by means of 'institutional' procedures or by a coup. For that reason they have utilised all available resources: furious media campaigns, production stoppages, lockouts, terrorist actions, the export of capital and even a failed attempt at assassination.

The politics of the US and the opposition

It was clear that US imperialism backed the April coup attempt, or at least gave a green light to Carmona and sectors of the army, because of the way that the US immediately recognised Carmona as President, as did Bush's lackey in Europe, José María Aznar. Chávez's closeness to Cuba, a series of diplomatic squabbles, and his condemnation of the 'war on terrorism' provoked anger and condemnation by the US State Department.

The people's response to Carmona's coup attempt and the split in the Armed Forces raised the spectre of civil war. For that reason, American imperialism has opted for a more cautious policy towards Chávez, although during the recent political crisis, in declarations which were later denied, officials of the US State Department supported the opposition. The US is concerned since Venezuela is one of its major oil suppliers. That's why it seeks to get rid of Chávez, although not by means of a coup. It's clear that the Bush government, in its preparations for war against Iraq, would very much appreciate a friendly government in Caracas.

In order to calm the situation, representatives of the Carter Foundation and of the UN, and César Gaviria, the president of the OAS (Organisation of American States) - that is, the 'Ministry of Colonies' - arrived in Venezuela. Gaviria's aim is to negotiate an 'constitutional' solution to the crisis, trying to bring together moderate elements from both the Chávez and the anti-Chávez camps in a kind of government of national unity, or to arrange a timetable for the dignified departure of the former parachutist colonel. Of course these options imply either the complete capitulation of Chávez or his overthrow sometime in the future. For that reason it is necessary to reject the mediation by Gaviria and the OAS.

On the other hand, the opposition, despite agreeing to the ousting of Chávez, seems to have failed to reach an agreement on how to do it. It has split into 'moderate' and 'radical' groups. The Coordinadora Democrática is a heterogeneous front with neither a clear programme nor common methods. It embraces, among others, the representatives of the big bourgeoisie of FEDECAMARAS, the union bureaucracy of the CTV, and the church hierarchy. It is also supported by the Maoist group Bandera Roja. As a product of the crisis of the traditional parties that collapsed with the old regime, the opposition still lacks credible figures to staff a unified leadership. One of the causes of the divisions is that neither the employers nor sectors of the middle class are happy with the alliance with the leadership of the CTV. Although the main spokesman, of the Coordinadora Democrática is the leader of the CTV, Carlos Ortega, its main support comes from the middle class, 'public school boys' from the better-off quarters of Caracas, and a layer of workers and employees who are either better-paid or under the control of the trade union bureaucracy. They also have the support of the privately owned mass media, which have launched a furious campaign against the Chávez regime calling for a coup.

After the April coup

Once reinstated in the presidency, Chávez kept calling on the defeated, weakened and confused opposition to engage in peace and national reconciliation. Venezuelan and Latin American workers must draw a lesson from these evens - that there is no possibility to reconcile the interests of the workers and poor people with those of the capitalist oligarchy and imperialism. The permanent conspiracy of the ruling class can only be answered by a sharp policy, with workers taking advantage of the tactical retreat of the rulers, beating them decisively at the heart of their economic, political and military power.

The April coup - whose programme was a declaration of war against workers and the poor - was crushed by the spontaneous uprising of working and popular masses of Caracas and other towns. It was thanks to this that Chávez was able to hold on to power in those dramatic days because the armed forces had split and one section had supported the coup.

On April 13th a mass upsurge took place - of a basically spontaneous character - which was probably the largest mass action since the 1989 Caracazo, and brought about a favourable change in the balance of forces. The country was deeply socially and politically fractured into two openly confrontational camps. The opposition had emerged weakened and divided. Part of its cadre in the army had been displaced. There were cases of fraternisation between the troops, low ranking officers and the mobilised population. Among the masses a widespread sensation of victory was felt, and popular organisations - Bolivarian Circles, land committees, fighting trade unions and popular assemblies - developed very quickly.

However, this favourable situation was let slip, and exactly eight months later it was the opposition which went on to the offensive.

The limitations of Chávez and the character of his regime

The current situation is largely the responsibility of Chávez himself and his calls for peace and moderation after the popular victory of April 13. The hesitations, indecisions and inconsistencies in facing the plotters are due to the bourgeois character of his regime. At the beginning of his term Chávez - who could count on the support of the Armed Forces and the masses, and was assisted by a rise in oil prices - attempted to play the role of arbiter between different social classes and imperialism and to rebuild the ruined political regime, while guaranteeing social peace. But today this project is bankrupt.

With the setting-up of the Fifth Republic, based on the Bolivarian Constitution, Chávez declared that he would bring back stability to a Venezuela in which the old bourgeois regime - that of the 'Punto Fijo' agreement - based on the traditional parties (AD and COPEI) was decomposing. As the possibilities of a 'Saudi Venezuela' created by a flood of oil revenues receded, leading to the threat of new Caracazos like the one that had rocked the country in 1989, a regime change was indispensable. Chávez presented himself as an arbiter capable of 'reconciling the nation', appealing to the poor masses with anti-neoliberal rhetoric in order to prevent them from following an independent course that might threaten the bourgeois order.

The characteristics of the Chávez regime bear some relation to sui generis bonapartism, a kind of regime that Leon Trotsky defined, and which occurred in the 1930s and in the post second world war period in semi-colonial countries. Such governments, based on the army and the state apparatus, attempt to 'rise' above the social classes to arbitrate between the social interests in conflict, giving concessions to the mass movement in order to have more room for manoeuvre with imperialism. These governments, although they may quarrel with imperialism, end up surrendering and being incapable of dealing with internal reaction, due to their bourgeois character.

Thus, 'Chavism' stands for 'empty hands populism', that may swing leftwards or rightwards, as Chávez has shown in these last few years, but, due to its class character, is incapable of breaking with imperialism and satisfying the elementary demands of the masses of both town and country. It also confirms that the fight for national demands in a semi-colony cannot be left in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The irrefutable proof of these is in the experiences of the masses under Perón in 1955 and Allende in 1973.

Today, the foundations on which his project stood are in a complete crisis. The National Armed Force and the police are divided. Although the General Staff, for the time being, is faithful to the president, it is certain that the differences are eating away at the institution. This is demonstrated by the constant disobeying of orders by middle and high ranking officers who are demanding the resignation of the president and who mutinied in the Plaza Altamira in Caracas - this being one of the high point of the opposition's agitation. Recently the government intervened in the Metropolitan Police of Caracas because they were loyal to an opposition mayor, an event which triggered the 'civic strike'.

The political structure established by Chávez in order to take office is not doing any better. Within his cabinet there are notorious differences between the 'neoliberal' and the nationalist wings. The founder of the MVR, and one of Chávez's main political operators, Miquelena, shifted to the opposition a few days before the April coup plot. Chávez's allies from the MAS and the PPT have been in a deep crisis before, during and after the April conspiracy. As a consequence, in spite of having parliamentary majority, his MPs are divided into an official and a moderate group. In both sectors there are strong suspicions of corruption, something that the regime has used to its advantage. Likewise, despite having replaced the civil service bureaucracy, the old practice of favouritism has not disappeared.

The reforms in the regime introduced by Chávez have allowed the bourgeoisie to breathe freely. This is demonstrated by the fact that the courts have released the leaders of the April plot from prison, and today are enabling the opposition to carry out a referendum.

To sum up, the institutions of the state and the regime, like the Armed Forces, parliament, and the judiciary - all of which are attempting to constrain any audacious step by Chávez' - are not just in crisis but also are under the control of agents of the pro-imperialist bourgeoisie.

In the economic arena he hasn't done any better either. In the beginning Chávez sought to energise Venezuelan capitalism, protecting 'productive capital', extending credit lines to small and middle producers, and incorporating foreign capital into 'national development', as shown by his insistence on attracting investment into the oil industry and other areas. Those measures, far from benefiting workers, put the full weight of the crisis on their backs, as shown by the devaluation of the Bolívar in February 2002 which increased the cost of living and cut public spending by 20%. Meanwhile the bourgeoisie has been exporting thousands of millions of dollars a year, the external debt is being paid on time, no progressive taxes of the rich have been introduced, and the foreign oil companies are make huge profits.

No 'national development' is feasible in this way, let alone the transformation of the old conditions of bourgeois exploitation and imperialist looting, because the measures do not affect the basis of bourgeois property or the country's subordination to foreign capital. Thus, 80% of Venezuelans are still below the poverty line; 60% only just survive in the 'informal economy'; and official unemployment has risen to 20%. The employers go on sacking people and imposing labour flexibility, while inflation undermines wages. Meanwhile, the considerable oil revenues continue to benefit the biggest capitalists and the foreign investors.

The reason that the middle class joined the opposition is rooted in the economic crisis and not merely in ideological questions. During the boom years, the Venezuelan middle class grew and developed on the back of the oil revenues, but now is poverty-stricken. This middle class, made up of liberal professionals, young managers working in the multinationals, students, the owners of small companies, is deeply conservative and culturally and politically backward. Since Chavism did not challenge the economic interests of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, it could not satisfy any of the economic aspirations of the middle classes that through these years have seen their living standards decline steeply due to the export of capital, inflation and the liquidation of their savings. Neither was the middle class seduced by favouritism and corruption, which is still common under the new regime. The constant imperialist propaganda of the privately owned mass media and the pressure of the bourgeois politicians drew them to the plotters' camp, where they were used as a hysterical battering ram of reaction. In addition, those sections of the middle class which have cultural and social connections with the army also played a role in drawing the majority of the middle class to the side of the plotters.

However, the regime still relies on the support of broad layers of the poorest workers. Although they have been given very little by Chávez - minimal agrarian reform and salary increases which have been absorbed by inflation - according to some media reports over 30% of them still support the president. That's because the ascent of Chavism enabled the poor masses of the countryside and the town to participate in national political life. This phenomenon was boosted by the active role that the masses played during the defeat of the April coup. From then on the most exploited working masses, the poor and the excluded from the city have been undergoing a clearly political upsurge: confronting the plotters and defending what they regard as their conquests. They achieved a great political victory, at the cost of dozens dead and hundreds wounded, experiencing a leap in their experience and politicisation. This is demonstrated by the fact that, in the heat of the April days, popular assemblies sprang up in the poor quarters as neighbourhood committees and fighting unions, and that the so-called Bolivarian Circles became the axis for the organisation of many mobilisations.

Prospects

Day by day the situation in Venezuela is more tense. In spite of the government's efforts the equilibrium cannot last very long, especially when the oil industry has been taken hostage by the forces of reaction. It appears that the opposition leaders' call for civil disobedience and the refusal to pay taxes is a symptom of the weakening of the 'civic strike' and a sign that it could be called off. If this happens, Chávez could get closer to the employers and imperialism, although this wouldn't rule out the opposition returning to the fray at some future point, because the US and the bourgeoisie don't consider Chávez to be 'their' man.

But if the crisis deepens and serious measures are not taken against the plotters, other possibilities may occur. One way out might be that some sections of the army, faced with the danger of social break down and civil war, displace Chávez as a preventive measure, for the sake of 'national unity', and gradually return power to the oligarchy. This scenario would be tragic for the masses, because it would install a regime aimed at recolonising the country, as a battering ram for reaction in the whole continent, as well as unleashing revenge attacks against the popular classes that dared to challenge the rulers over the last few years.

Another variant is that Chávez, undermined by economic chaos, gives up the presidency in the name of 'avoiding bloodshed between brothers' and joins the pact with the moderates proposed by the OAS in order to make the transition to a new government.

Yet another possibility is a bloodbath headed by a civic-military junta, which would establish a semi-fascist dictatorship using civil war methods against the popular classes. However, after the April experience and because of the lack of suitable leaders in the ranks of the opposition, this is an unlikely scenario.

Any one of these variants would be against the most elementary interests of the popular masses, and could occur if the masses do not act decisively to smash subversion. Once again it is necessary to reflect on the historical experience of Allende and Perón in order to show the limits of bourgeois nationalism and the capitulations inherent in their politics.

How to confront the plotters?

Chávez has said that he will reinstate order with the help of the Armed Forces and will ensure the continuation of production, but initially he had to pull back from his attempt to seize the 'Pilín León' oil tanker, which was blocking the port of Maracaibo, because the judiciary ruled that the navy was not qualified to sail such a ship. Neither the 'loyal' Armed Forces nor the bourgeois institutions can be trusted!

A consistent fight against counterrevolution is necessary: that is, the broad mobilisation of the workers and the poor people in defence of what they regard as their conquests and against the employer-imperialist plot that seeks to recolonise the country.

For such a goal to be achieved it is necessary to fight for the expropriation of the plotters of FEDECAMARAS, of all employers' and landowners' organisations, who own the main levers of the economy, as well as driving imperialism out of the country. Key points in this programme are: the genuine nationalisation of the whole hydrocarbons industry - production, refinement and distribution - as the first step towards workers' management and displacing the managerial class that profits from the oil revenues; the non-payment of the foreign debt and the abandoning of all agreements that subordinate Venezuela to imperialism; the nationalisation under workers' and people's control of all companies that close down; and of the big media which are tools for counterrevolutionary agitators. In order to win over the poor masses of the countryside to this programme it is necessary to encourage the occupation of the big landowners' estates as a step on the road to true agrarian reform.

In order to counter shortages, the black market and speculation it is necessary that the popular sectors control the distribution of food and basic goods currently held in the warehouses of the monopolists, middlemen and big merchants.

The plotters, both civilian and military, should rot in jail. In order to deal with provocations, terrorist acts and sabotage by the oligarchs, the development and the centralisation of workers' and people's armed self-defence committees is necessary. Neither the General Staff nor the middle-ranking officers can be trusted, because of their numerous links with the bourgeoisie and the reactionary sections of the middle class. The rank and file soldiers and non-commissioned officers must be entitled to disobey the orders of opposition-supporting officers and to denounce any attempt at conspiracy. Only the revolutionary pressure of the workers and the people in arms will convince the best elements in the rank and file of the army to come out against reaction and neutralise those who are undecided.

Chávez's threats 'against oligarchy and fascism' are of no value. Neither are mass rallies if concrete slogans and precise goals are lacking - they are mere vacillations that do nothing but encourage the union bureaucracy and the big bourgeoisie. The reactionary bosses and imperialists know where to strike. The masses that restored Chávez to office in April know very well who their enemies are and have already demonstrated their heroism and self-sacrifice in the struggle to put an end to counterrevolution.

The world situation in the wake of the September 11 Atacks

Gustavo Dunga, Juan Chingo — 2009-06-08T15:25:05Z

I The September 11 attacks and the ensuing "war against terror" have opened up a new situation worldwide. We are witnessing an increased aggressiveness and warmongering on the part of imperialism; new alignments among the big powers and also between them and the semi-colonial countries, a systemic crisis of the world economy and also increased class polarization and tension.

II The break down of the 90s unstable equilibrium

The present situation means the unstable equilibrium of the 90s has broken down. During that period, the US regained -to a certain extent- their hegemonic position with regards to rival imperialist powers and expanded their political and economic rule over both peripheral countries and the so-called "second periphery", as shown by the inroads of capitalist restoration in Eastern Europe, the former USSR and China -in a drive that also involved their Japanese and European counterparts. The demise of the USSR gave the US an enhanced room for manoeuvre that allowed expanding the frontiers of capital to new geographical regions and also deepening the neoliberal offensive all around the world- the so-called "globalisation".

However, if during the early 90s there was the illusion of a "harmonious and peaceful" expansion of their rule, a whole series of contradictions and antagonistic forces surfaced in the last few years of the last century, which dissipated such illusions. These forces at work are: the 1997 South East Asian slump and the ensuing crisis in the so-called "emerging markets" that plunged most of the countries in the periphery into a deep crisis; the emergence and development of the anti-capitalist movement in the imperialist heartlands after the "battle of Seattle" in late 1999; the failure of the neoliberal agenda in Latin America and the resistance that went hand in hand with it and grew apace in the year 2000; the outburst of a second Intifada in Palestine in September 2000 and the increasing anti-American mood in the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world; the rejection by both the Russian and the Chinese bureaucracies and also the European imperialist governments to the Bush administration in his first six months in office; the end of the American "boom" that has dragged the whole world economy into recession.

Given this situation, the September 11 attacks have fuelled and sped up the developments in the world situation, pointing to a break down in the unstable equilibrium of the last decade.

III Historical vulnerablity, increased interventionism and warmongering

The September 11 attacks exposed the increased historical vulnerability of the US. The growing economic, political and military domination of the peoples of the world by imperialism has brought an increased intermingling of the contradictions and the turmoil in our planet with US capital, eroding its foundations.

A most telling proof of this has been the failure of imperialism in preventing the flare-up of regional conflicts or else civil wars in zones or states far away from its territory from affecting its security at home (e.g., Afghanistan).

That is why, all things considered, the demise of the Stalinist apparatus worldwide has ultimately increased its historical vulnerability.
The collaboration of Stalinism when it came to pinning down the working class and the national liberation movements was a key leverage to keep the status quo in the wake of the Second World War. The loss of such counter-revolutionary ally-adversary means the US shall deal alone with all the contradictions at work in the world arena, which means it is increasingly exposed to the blows coming from the "hotspots" of the planet.

Isolationism, which could have been a valid option at the time of their rise to world power, has now -given the present circumstances-, become not only inadequate but even unthinkable for the US due to their massive commitments abroad. The turn in Bush's foreign policy speaks volumes about this. No matter he was preparing for a "retreat" in the early days of his presidency with the aim of focusing on those spots deemed vital for their national interest, Bush has now become the standard-bearer of a "new interventionism": the presence of the US army is probably now at its peak ever since the end of the Second World War, spreading its tentacles in more than 140 countries.

IV US imperialism has responded to this unprecedented situation by a display of aggressiveness both at home and abroad, with the purpose of rebuilding its façade as an imperial power. By resorting to their overwhelming military muscle, they try to make a bold display of force in order to keep instability at bay and also go for a tightened surveillance at home and a new international security system. Will US imperialism be able to succeed in its undertakings in the period ahead? Or else, will they fail to match their military supremacy with an according political might? The answer we give to such questions has to do with the likelihood of the US making further progress to rule the world, thus prolonging their hegemony, or else -should they fail to do so- a quantum leap in their historical decline that commenced in the early 70s.

V A renewed unilateralism reliant on force and the central role of the imperialist state

In pursuit of their most precious purpose, i.e. the consolidation of their rule, the US have resorted to the huge political and military resources they have at hand, thus overriding all the obstacles standing in their way. This supreme aim presides over the other aspects of their war against terror: the reservations posed by the international alliance backing them, the reluctance of the Muslim countries in the sphere of foreign policy, or else the constitutional guarantees for the democratic rights and the scope of the state power at home. Such is the actual content of the "Bush doctrine": a massive concentration of power in the hands of the presidency to go for a renewed "unilateralism" on the world arena. The way the war was led bears testimony to this: exclusively Washington, without any consultation whatsoever, took all the major political and military decisions, even on the level of tactics. On top of this comes the US denunciation of the ABM Treaty in order to beef up its polemic national defense space shield, in late 2001. The White House has recently unveiled plans to store, not destroy, more than 4000 nuclear warheads that should have been destroyed under the auspices of the disarmament treaties signed by Russia and the US. Such decision, which is intent upon reassuring a strategic supremacy for the US in the long term, has meant a snub to their most fervent ally in the war against terror: the government of Putin. They have thus stripped Russia off any vestige of its superpower status.

In the present situation, the "multilateralism" that came after September 11 is nothing but a cover-up for this agenda, or more precisely a "multilateralism a la carte" -as some commentators brand it.

VI The central role played by the imperialist state, both when it came to leading the war as well as in the face of the recession; above all when it came to restoring the investors' confidence in the invincibility and solidity of the imperial power gives the lie to the think-tanks of the anti-globalisation movement, who claimed there is an "autonomy of multinational corporations" (MNC). The ongoing war against terror sponsored by Washington highlights that, regardless of the increased integration of the world economy in the last decades, such change has not eaten away the sovereignty of the nation-state, transferring it into the hands of a "supranational" entity -a postulate of those holding the view of a "Empire" or a post-imperialist world.
The main thrust of the US actions -never mind they are wrapped up in the robes of the defence of universal values ("infinite justice"/ "long-lasting freedom")- is to pursue their own national interest and to consolidate their domination. This is what shapes the aims and the means for the military operations. The US did not even bother this time to resort to the umbrella of the UN, as in the Gulf War back in 1991, or else that of their NATO allies, such as in the 1999 War against Yugoslavia. Although both the UN and NATO voted and passed resolutions supporting the general aims of the war against terror, both have been left behind when it came to the politico-military purposes of the retaliation drive.

VII The concepts of leadership/hegemony on one hand, and domination/coercion on the other can be applied to appraise the forms of the US supremacy and the way in which it is exerted. This comes and goes down to alternative paths. The first path is the one used in their links with their closest allies -NATO and Japan. The second path is the one used in the links of Washington with the periphery, in which the ratio of consensus/coercion is hinged upon both economic relevance of, and also the strategic interest in any given allied or client state.

Although the crusade against terror has enabled Washington to enhance its hegemony over the rival big powers, this relies, in the main, in a discretional use of force. This determines the nature of the anti-terror coalition now backing and giving legitimacy to Washington's agenda. In this respect, the alliance of big powers behind them is different from the anti-communist alliance that Washington led during the so-called "cold war". Back then, its unrivalled hegemony empowered them to preside over a bloc made up of the Western powers and Japan, which rallied behind its aims, while it ruled on the nations of the semicolonial periphery -in the wider framework of mutual influence and propaganda between a US-led capitalist world and the Moscow-led "socialist" bloc. Today, with the "cold war" long gone, the US is not in a position to gain an unconditional acceptation of the rival powers to their diktats, which means that the consensus/coercion ratio will shift to increasing levels of coercion.

With regards to the semicolonial countries, the rule exerted by Washington has become stronger. Bush's ultimatum -"either you are with us or with the terrorists"- has narrowed the room for manoeuvre for this countries, forcing them into an almost total support for the US if they do not want to call forth a diplomatic and/or military retaliation. The US are today resorting to a political, diplomatic, economic and (in some cases) even military blackmail or extortion to wrestle support from the oil-producing countries in the Gulf, Egypt, Turkey and even countries like Argentina -in stark contrast to what happened with the coalition against Irak, when such countries enthusiastically collaborated with the US. Back in 1991, the downfall of the USSR meant that Washington could cover up its rule with a relative dose of consensus, which was codified in the "Washington Consensus" espoused by most peripheral countries. Today, the aggravation of the social and economic situation in the wake of the increased imperialist take-over of the periphery in the last decades, makes the alignment with Washington will come by as a by-product of pressure, rather than being considered a strategic option in itself.

The increased american rule is the main source of tensions worldwide

VIII In the short term, Washington's influence over the various countries in the world has been enhanced. Nevertheless, this enhanced US rule is the main source, in the medium term, of massive tensions building up within the international state system, which might burst into the open as a result of any sudden turn-about of both political and military developments. On a more strategic level, such tensions stem from the uncontestable division of the world in three imperialist economic blocs with a relatively equal power. This, at a time when the process of capitalist restoration in the old "communist giants" has not transformed them into full-blown semi-colonies -notwithstanding the major inroads of capitalism there. On top of these we should add the unheard-of exacerbation of combined and uneven development in the semicolonial countries provoked by the neo-colonial drive there.

These systemic conditions account for the historical inadequacy of every attempt by Washington at turning its regained hegemony -which all in all is a defensive response to the September 11 attacks- into an offensive line aimed at establishing a new order tailor-made for the US -what some analysts call a "hyperpower".

IX From here flows a tension running through the strategic orientation of the US foreign policy in the wake of September 11, which has underpinned two strands within the US politico-military establishment. After the major initial successes achieved in the first phase of the war against terror in Afghanistan, such rift has resurfaced now in the debates surrounding the politico-military targets of the second phase, and also impinges on the discussions on how to deal with the vast zone of instability in Eurasia -the legacy of the demise of the USSR.

The "Powell fraction" poses a continued line of regional balances of power (India-Pakistan, Iran/Iraq), the main leverage through which Washington kept its tutelage in those strategic regions -using for its own benefit the regional dynamics of power. The other wing, represented by vice-president Dick Cheney and the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld seeks to rely on a reactionary alliance of nations that, through all-out military intervention or else tough diplomatic pressure, wipes out or isolates those countries regarded as a threat against key national interests of the US.

What runs through such stand-off is a different view around the US global mission. On one hand, we see a more cautious wing inclined to the preservation of the world status quo, since they are more aware of the historic limits bearing down on the US hegemony; their main purpose being to put down those regional destabilizing hot-spots threatening the US security. On the other hand, we see a more adventurous and aggressive wing who wants to uproot the symptoms pointing to a secular US decline -which the September 11 attacks merely exposed in the light.

The second alternative is, from the standpoint of the established balance of forces, extremely dangerous for the long-term interests of imperialism and can lead to a further destabilization of the whole planet, if implemented. Although the first phase of crusade against terror has shown that both wings are far from being antagonistic to each other, but rather can peacefully coexist within Bush's cabinet, the victory in Afghanistan has tipped the balance strongly in favour of the axis Cheney-Rumsfeld, the more unilateral-prone sector.

The defeat of the taliban and the onset of a reactionary conjuncture

X The ousting of the Taliban regime and the establishment of an interim government in Kabul has reinforced the grip of US imperialism and president Bush, who is enjoying top popularity thanks to the military victory. These factors have turned the present-day situation in a reactionary one. The swiftness of the military intervention and the low numbers of American casualties evidenced the overwhelming US military might, which boosts the self-confidence of the imperialist chief-of-staff.
On top of this, another major reactionary element at work today is the military deployments by the big powers that have rallied with Washington and its crusade, fuelled by the drive against terror and the fact that it has become a top priority for the US foreign policy. Such powers are seizing upon the opportunity to further their own national interests under the umbrella of the dominant power. Thus, both Japan and Germany have deployed major contingents abroad for the first time ever since the end of World War II -Japan in the Indian Ocean and Germany in the African horn. England is leading the peace corps on the ground in Afghanistan, a reaffirmation of London's will to be the main ally of the US, which has given them an important role in shaping the fate of Afghanistan. Such increasing warmongering in the international arena is a major aspect of the present reactionary conjuncture.

The reinforcement of reactionary regional agencies

XI Another reactionary feature of the reactionary conjuncture can be seen in the drive of some minor powers to push ahead with local or regional demands by jumping on board the train of the US crusade.
The regained legitimacy of the two year-long Russian crusade against Chechnya is a point in case. In the past, the brutal military intervention there and the violations of human rights by the Russian army rose international attention. In the new atmosphere worldwide, full with Washington's war against terror, Putin's government has been able to persuade the West in holding back any kind of political or financial support for the Chechen rebels.

In turn, India has also seized the opportunity and tries to wipe out the Muslim fighters active in Kahsmir, in a drive to undermine Pakistan, its regional competitor, by means of troop deployments at the border and the implicit threat of a nuclear war. While trying to prevent a regional war there, Washington uses his leverage with a two-fold purpose: on one hand they want to get Musharraf to control or else smash the Muslim terrorists, which have been formed or else encouraged by the Pakistani secret service -as they did with the Taliban in the past. The Pakistani president caved in to this pressure mounted by India and the US, thus bringing about a turn-about in Pakistan's domestic politics. As many as five Muslim extremist parties have been banned, while hundreds of supporters of Islamic fundamentalism have been thrown into jail.

Never mind that the Washington was able to keep India at bay during the first phase of the war in Afghanistan with the aim of upholding the anti-terrorist coalition in the Muslim world, the anti-terror agenda has fuelled the reactionary appetites of India as a key strategic ally of Washington in Asia.

Sharon's escalation against the palestinian masses

XII Washington, right at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, proclaimed it stood for the recognition of a Palestinian state. But as days went by, the US policy veered towards an open support for Sharon's tough line and war moves. The latter tries to turn the tables in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to force the Palestinian people into giving up on their national aspirations. In other words, he wants no more discussion around the issue of the status of Jerusalem, to push ahead with Israeli settlements and also bury the issue of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

In pursuit of his political purposes, Sharon is ready to resort to any means at hand, even going for the military re-occupation of all the territories now controlled by Palestinian National Authority -handed over to it under the auspice of the Oslo Agreements. Such political and military escalation seeks, in the short term, to blackmail Arafat into dismantling the Intifada and also push him to wipe out the Palestinian "extremists" such as Jihad and the Hamas. However, it is unlikely that Arafat succeeds in this, being cornered by both the Israeli escalation and the increasing domestic opposition to his leadership. That is why the government of Israel also contemplates replacing Arafat as head of the Palestinian National Authority, while still recognizing its legitimacy as a spoke-person of Palestinian interests. The die-hards in Sharon cabinet want to go beyond that, smashing the whole PNA structure built in 1993 at the onset of the peace process. On top of this enormous pressure has come, in the last few days, the Bush administration that has practically isolated Arafat and is now considering a wide range of alternative policies, some of which go as far as cutting off diplomatic links with the PNA.

An increasing military interference

XIII In turn, the war against terror has led to increased US involvement in domestic conflicts and civil wars raging in some countries. Washington has given political support for them, and even sent military assistance and equipment to the armies of such states.

This is the case of Colombia, where the government of Pastrana has taken a tougher stance in the negotiation with the FARC, jeopardizing the peace process and threatening to unleash a bloodbath if the guerrillas do not cave in to his demands. This tougher stance by the Colombian government is also a by-product of Washington's reactionary offensive in our continent. It is also the outcome of the Plan Colombia, which laid the basis for the re-armament and better training of the Colombian army, which has also built closer ties to the US army. The US is poised to set up a political control of a highly destabilized zone, namely the north of South America, that is affected by drug smuggling, the thirty year-long war of the FARC against the Colombian state and the deterioration of the links with Venezuela ever since Chavez became president.

But this reflects a deeper-going tendency: the US is about to send Marines to Mindanao in the Philippines to launch joint actions with the army there against Muslim extremist linked to Al Qaeda. Such deployment of the US army is the biggest outside Afghanistan and hallmarks the onset of the second phase in the war against terror. In turn, the US have rebuilt their links with the Indonesian army, and are funding the army of this vast country, after an interruption in the wake of Suharto's downfall and the human rights violations in East Timor.
Such increased military interference in the domestic affairs of these countries might lead to a destabilization of the governments in such countries, fuelling an anti-American mood that will become a major hindrance in the future.

The 'revolutionary days' in Argentina are a conter-tendency to the reactionary conjuncture

XIV The "revolutionary days" in Argentina provoked the revolutionary downfall of De la Rúa's government and ushered in a revolutionary phase, offsetting the tendencies at work in the reactionary conjuncture signed by imperialist warmongering.

Although the new Peronist government is trying to defuse them, these revolutionary developments might impinge on South American countries and boost the resistance of the workers and the masses in the region, which are now suffering a harsh recession, imperialist greed and the austerity drives sponsored by the IMF and the local governments.
The revolutionary developments in Argentina take up the path initiated by the mass upsurge in South America that kicked off with the fall of Mahuad's government in the wake of the aboriginal peasants and people's uprising in early 2000 -although in a changed international situation after September 11. The revolutionary nature of the mass backlash is reflected in the fact that two governments were ousted in Ecuador in 1997 and 2000. It also nourished a semi-insurrection in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba in April 2000, and some months later, a peasant upswing ensued that cornered Banzer. Then came the demonstrations against Fujimori in Peru, the protests against Cubas' government that also defeated the military pronouncement by General Oviedo in Paraguay -among the most important events.

All these developments in the region have transformed it in the vanguard of the fight against the neoliberal onslaught that swept through the semi-colonial world in the 90s. The slump in Argentina, which used to be the pride and joy of neoliberalism both in our continent and worldwide, is a quantum leap in this tendency. This has fuelled enormous concern in the imperialist circles, which fear "political contagion" might deal a deathblow to the beleaguered "Consensus of Washington", the rallying platform for factions of the native bourgeoisie. The internecine fights within the bourgeoisie have grown deeper because the region is a field of competition for the US, the hegemonic and historically dominating imperialist power, and the European imperialist powers, particularly Spain, that gained ground in the last decade via privatization. The world recession has heightened the frictions among them, not only in the economic terrain but also in the political arena, as shown by the European intervention in the Colombian peace process.

The inter-imperialist rivalries, the internecine rifts in the ruling class and the revolutionary emergence of the masses might all fuel destabilisation in the US imperialism's "back yard". This, in turn, might turn out to be a stumbling block in the US reactionary crusade.

Will Washington's present stregth be transformed into a new relative stability?

XV The mass popularity of Bush, the swift demise of the Taliban regime, the lack of mass protests across the Muslim world in rejection of the US aggression in Afghanistan and the acquiescence of the international community to the war aims of the US, have all boosted warmongering amongst the politico-military establishment in Washington.

Right now, the US has stepped up the fight to smash Al Qaeda as an international network operating in different countries. That is why it has formed new political and military alliances with Ethiopia, Kenya, Yemen and Sudan to have them as local allies to succeed in its fight. They have taken a leaf out of Afghanistan's book. The failure of their 1994 intervention in Somalia, in which they chased a "war lord", has taught them the lesson also in the hard way.

But it was only after the victory in Afghanistan that they started to speculate with big scale military interventions, even bigger than the recent campaign in Central Asia. This is what the most belligerent wings of imperialism are demanding -the so-called "hawks". They see they have a historic opportunity to set the terms of the US foreign policy in the forthcoming period, by launching strikes against Iraq, this time ousting Saddam Hussein, thus tipping the tables in their favour in that strategic region of the planet. On a global scale, the US want to appear tough and assertive through a coup de main and thus reestablish his military invincibility in such a way so as to consolidate a reactionary situation worldwide, a new period of relative stability for the next five years.

Apart from the mass opposition that such initiative would meet in the Islamic world and also the imperialist countries, such perspective comes up against the following obstacles:

– The failed attempt at capturing both the Al Qaeda leaders and Bin Laden himself. Bush has smashed the Al Qaeda havens in Afghanistan, but has been unable to prevent its upper echelons, and also Bin Laden, from running away. This remains one of the top objectives of the war against terror -a drawback the first phase has not yet resolved. Furthermore, since the US government focused the crusade on Bin Laden's persona, seizing him is a major issue for the it, hence the massive pressure is mounting on Pakistan, where he might be hiding. If they fail to capture him, the confidence in the Bush administration might falter.

– A thinly veiled crisis has opened up with Saudi Arabia. Ever since September 11, the war against Islamic fundamentalism has fuelled a thinly veiled crisis between the US and Saudi Arabia. The roots of such crisis lie deep in the historic motives for the strategic alliance between Washington and this top oil power in the Gulf area. This has been a mainstay of the US policy in the Middle East -along with the state of Israel and the Iranian Sha's regime right up to 1979-, but the common grounds for such alliance have been massively eroded. Such a conservative alliance came to life as a bulwark against the bourgeois nationalist tidal wave initiated by Nasser in Egypt, which was supported by the USSR and impinged on both Iraq and Syria, leading to significant transformations there. Such alliance was reshaped to act against the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and they went for support of Iraq in its crusade against Iran, and later switched to opposition against Hussein when the Gulf War came. But Iraq today is massively weakened, the USSR no longer exists and the main present-day enemy of the US has become Islamic fundamentalism, which has strong roots in Saudi Arabia itself. The Islamic factions, in spite of their fierce opposition against the Saudi royal family, have links with it and there are also Islamic sympathizers within it. That is why the US attempt at spreading their crusade against terror to the Persian Gulf is not regarded with sympathy by Saudi Arabia -which might even lead to it leaving the US-led coalition altogether. Such move would have enormous strategic consequences, jeopardizing any attempts at striking against Iraq in the first place.

– Growing tensions between Iran and the US. Iran is concerned about the US military build up in the Middle East, what might be an obstacle for a renewed military intervention in the region -in stark contrast with the Gulf War. Iran concerns flow from the fact that the US has clinched solid alliances with Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and also several small Gulf states such as Oman. Furthermore, the US have beefed up their military presence on Afghan soil -American troops are deployed just 100 km away from the Iranian eastern border- and also central Asia. On the other, the all-embracing "war against terror" gives the US an unprecedented free hand in the Middle East, targeting the Palestinian Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese Hezbollah -all of them closely linked to Iran. This is fuelling new tensions between the US and Iran, which have flared up in the recent incident of the ship loaded with weapons for the Palestinians and Iran's hostility towards Afghanistan's interim government.

– The Enron collapse and the implications for the Bush administration. So far, a blend of renewed patriotism at home and military victory abroad have rallied the US population behind their president, in spite of the impact of the recession. The Enron affaire, i.e. the biggest bankruptcy in the US corporate history, might smear the presidency in an electoral year. This case of corruption involves the managers of Enron, big bankers and also notorious members of the American establishment, the Republican Party in particular -including the cabinet and the president himself. If all the attempts at separating the Bush administration from this scandal fail, it might seriously impact on the presidential institution, thus confirming the view of many Americans who think the president gives the rich and the big corporations a preferential treatment. But never mind this scenario never comes true, the impact of the recession on the US masses might potentially tear apart the domestic front, as the full brunt of the crisis is being born by the working class.

Bush's tough stance and threatening tone in his "State of the Union" speech reflected such tendencies at work. The mention of Iraq, North Korea and Iran as "axis of evil" signals that Bush has sided with the die-hards of his cabinet in the second phase of his war against terror -although he failed to propose yet any concrete course of action.
The inclusion of Iran as a state supporting terrorism means we are in for a re-shaping of the alliances in the Middle East, since this pushes Tehran in the direction of Baghdad. Now, both have the common goal of refraining the US might in the region -no matter their enmity. The emergence of such regional entente is impinging hard on Saudi Arabia that is now demanding a reduction of the US troops presence on its soil, since this -given the changed scenario- might have negative consequences for the Saudi royal family at home.
The US aim in this strategic region is to clearly separate the "rogue" states from their allied ones. This is the case with Egypt, which is more concerned now with Islamic fundamentalism rather than the consequences of the Intifada in Palestine. Egypt, along with Israel, might provide an axis against the Iran-Iraq bloc. Syria, on its part, should side with one of the two camps.

XVI The widespread consensus that Washington rallied during the Afghan campaign, itself the byproduct of the horrified reaction to the brutal attack on the WTC and also the worldwide rejection of the Taliban regime, will hardly come by in the second phase of the war against terror. There is a heated discussion now going on among the US allies around what targets should be attacked next. The issues of the legitimacy and the operational drawbacks of launching interventions against the so-called "failed states" such as Somalia grow much bigger when it comes to striking at the so-called "rogue states" such as Irak. If Washington stroke against the latter, it can be seen as acting in a too "unilateral" fashion.

In turn, pursuing intelligence, security or police actions by the US security forces, both on US soil and abroad requires a certain trust in the "good intentions" and the competence of the US. But this might fuel tensions with the members of the coalition. Already the US plan to take strangers suspected of terrorism to the military courts, with the likelihood of any terrorist suspect being sentenced to death, on top of the harrowing conditions of Al Qaeda prisoners in Guantánamo have fuelled a big concern in Europe, which demands that "human rights" should be observed in the crusade against terror -or else another legitimating cover-up. Keeping the coalition in place in the current circumstances will be much harder than at any time during the war in Afghanistan.

A synchronised world recession

XVII The successful imperialist offensive and the break-throughs in the diplomatic and military agenda go hand in hand with the unfolding of a recession in the world economy. For the first time ever since the years 1973-75, the world is undergoing the first synchronized world recession engulfing the three imperialist blocs (the US, Germany and Europe and Japan) and also affecting the countries in the capitalist periphery. This recession is not merely the conclusion of a cyclic recovery. It was not sparked off by a correction of the stock market, but it was rather triggered by a real fall of profits. It is a systemic crisis pointing to the exhaustion of the neoliberal onslaught that the world bourgeoisie -the US bosses in particular- resorted to try and snap out of the crisis of accumulation bogging down the world economy since the 70s -when the postwar boom passed away unceremoniously. In spite of all kind of monetary and fiscal policies implemented by both the central banks and the governments of the imperialist powers to kickstart the economy, the systemic nature of the crisis prevents the world economy from taking off, unless a massive destruction of capital is brought about first. That is why the most likely perspective is a deepening and a prolongation of the recession next year, and we cannot rule out a generalized economic depression.

XVIII The roots of the present recession are to be found in the changes that took place in the world economy in the last few decades. The increased rate of exploitation in the imperialist heartlands and the re-location of capital in those areas with cheap labour, along with the technological advances and the ensuing increased productivity in some branches, all fuelled a recovery of the rate of profit -although it was not restored to postwar levels. As a result of this, the accumulation of capital was re-launched, in a drive that went hand in hand with an increasing weight of finance all throughout the economy, fuelling the emergence of the so-called "speculative bubbles". Those dynamic geographical regions and branches that absorbed the surplus capital displayed high rates of growth -in stark contrast with the slowdown in most countries and the rest of the industrial branches- as long as the boom lasted, giving place to a massive over-accumulation when the boom went down. Such was the case in South East Asia in 1997 first - followed then by the crisis in the "emerging markets"- and the high tech sector in the US underpinning the 1995/2000 boom there at last. In a world economy growing increasingly dependent on the US as a last-resort market, and given the lack of an alternative powerhouse for growth, the world economy rapidly plunged into a synchronized recession. On top of this, we should add the unprecedented growth of world trade that has come to represent a 24% of the world GDP.

XIX There is no easy way out of such vicious circle of a synchronized recession. This is so due to the lack of new powerhouse set to replace the ailing American economy.

In early 2001, Europe boasted about being such alternative to the American powerhouse. But, higher unemployment and a decreased investment and also the constrictions imposed on active fiscal and monetary policies by the provisions of both the Maastricht Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact leave Europe with little chances to play such role.

Japan is hardly in a position to drive the world out of the synchronized recession. The yen depreciation shows that Japanese policymakers see the currency stimulus as fuelling demand abroad as the only solution in the short term. The domestic demand is dead in the water, amid record levels of unemployment and a growth of industrial and commercial bankruptcies seriously affecting the banks, which threatens to spark off a financial crisis this year. This perspective sends shivers down the spine of many worldwide.

The countries in the capitalist periphery are neither in a position to kickstart the world economy. The imperialist onslaught in the last few decades meant opening up their economies and a subsequent crunch of their domestic markets, which have done away with any possible autonomous source of domestic demand. These countries have come to rely on a world trade-driven external demand on a scale never seen before. As a result of this, those countries are no longer able to cushion the advanced world, as they did in previous recessions since the early 70s.

China might be an exception to this tendency, since it still shows high indexes of growth in spite of the deep recession worldwide. But this is clearly inadequate with regards to the world economy, since the Chinese economy accounts for an extremely small fraction of the world's GDP yet.

Given the lack of alternative powerhouses in the world economy, everybody is turning their eyes in the direction of the US economy. However, the future does not look very rosy there, either. The fragility of its economy does not guarantee a vigorous recovery. China is plagued by a massive productive over-capacity, with a level of returns that some commentators deem the lowest ever since the big Depression in the 30s, so it is not likely that capital investment should lead to recovery. It is least likely that the upturn should come from external demand, given the synchronised recession and a high dollar. The only remaining leverage is a continued level of consumption, but this is at best a short-term source of growth. All the more so when the conditions reigning in the last decade allowing for high levels of corporate and private borrowing, along with the rapid hike of the value of assets (the so-called "wealth" effect) have gone for good. Today, the high levels of debt are a heavy burden bearing down on consumers, aggravated by the income loss fuelled by the recession and the sackings. The neo-Keynesian styled measures of Greenspan try to ameliorate this by cutting interest rates to boost demand. But this cannot be sustained for long. The perspectives, thus, are a weak recovery -we cannot even rule out this variant a short-lived one (one or two quarters)- and then the economy might plunge further into recession. But regardless this last scenario comes true or not we do believe that the world economy will not see a renewed impetus of the US economy, such as that of the late 90s. These factors are looming in the horizon, and the world economy can be left without any powerhouse at all.

XX The peripheral countries are the weak links in the chain of the world capitalism. Heavily indebted and affected by a massive deflation of the prices of raw materials, their economies might as well implode, thus triggering off a new debt crisis that will hit the imperialist banks and the finance system worldwide very hard. This has already happened with the default in Argentina which, no matter it had been long forecasted, massively eroded the position of the Spanish banks and corporations that had grown massively in the last decade. The crisis is so deep-going that no zone of the periphery has been left untouched. There are some exceptions, like Russia, China and India, all countries that combine relatively high levels of protectionism. This has enabled them to buttress the effects of the international recession, although they have endured a fall in those branches linked to foreign trade.

The export hubs of South East Asia, the main zone of accumulation in the world economy in the last three decades, have been hit the hardest. Their economies are profoundly affected today because of the end of the high tech cycle on which they largely depended on one hand, and the changes operated in the world division of labour due to the rise of China -the main destination for foreign direct investment seeking cheap labour- on the other.

In the Middle East, the fall oil prices and the massive reduction in the incomes generated by tourism might fuel a new economic shock that might send shock waves across this volatile region.
This is also the reality of the old semicolonies in Latin America, and even in Eastern European countries such as Poland. In the face of the reversal in capital inflow -a significant flow in the 90s- they have failed to infuse dynamism into their economies. The Argentine default is proof positive of this. The devaluation and an export boost do not provide an easy way out today, given the recession in the world economy. A continued deflation and recession combined with spurts of sluggish growth is the likely scenario for such regions for the whole decade ahead.

Commercial wars, protectionism and the spectre of the 30s

XXI The slowdown of the world economy is nourishing future stand-offs and economic disputes between rival imperialist powers that might trigger off a commercial war and a protectionist spiral hitting world trade very hard. The WTO dictum against US subsidies to their exports, which empowers the EU to impose economic sanctions on US exports should the US not abide by it, is a point in case. Imposing such sanctions could trigger off a commercial war that would throw transatlantic links into disarray, a dire perspective that none of them wants to come true. However, the room for manoeuvre to work out this conflict has narrowed a lot. The chances that the Bush administration could get to persuade a reluctant congress to change the legislation equal zero. Still worse, an attempt at pushing ahead a vote might raise voices demanding the US withdrawal from the WTO, something that might damage the system of world trade beyond repair. All this comes amid a vitriolic atmosphere of distrust between both blocs as a result of the US threat to impose import quotas on steel imports coming into the US market.

This commercial dispute is not an isolated case, however. Japan's decision to devalue its currency threatens to unleash a wave of competitive devaluations in the region that will jeopardize the inter-state relationships in South East Asia, particularly China, thus exerting deflationary pressures on both the US and Europe. Japan's policy aimed at unloading its crisis on the shoulders of neighbouring countries and also the rest of the world in order to seize a bigger share of the world market can further embitter the relationships between the main imperialist powers, undermining the frail foundations underpinning the system of world trade -the US pressure on Japan is already showing this.

This might indefinitely mire the coming round of WTO negotiations, which the US succeeded in launching at Qatar in late November, two years after the fiasco of the Seattle summit. On top of this, the increased fetters on world trade, themselves the by-product of the security measures adopted in the "war against terror" along with the criticisms leveled at the IMF for its management of the crisis in semicolonial countries like Argentina can all throw back the tendencies to integration at work in the world economy in the last few decades. The myth of globalisation, portrayed by the pundits of capitalism as an inescapable thrust, might come undone if the synchronized recession becomes a full-blown depression, fuelling tendencies to rely on regional blocs.

XXII The synchronized recession, the massive debt worldwide and the danger of default in many countries, the strong contraction of world trade -the fastest ever-, higher unemployment and increased corporate bankruptcies, deflationary tendencies and the heightened commercial and monetary disputes threatening to unleash commercial wars and a spiral of protectionism -all these infuse the world economy with an atmosphere more and more resembling that of the 30s.

Thus, we cannot rule out the ominous perspective of a stock market crash, given all the abovementioned factors, plus the high price of stocks combined with the four year-long fall of corporate profits as a percentage of the national income. The speculative bubble nourished by the massive liquidity injections by the Federal Reserve in the wake of September 11 and reliant on an expected quick and vigorous recovery -above all the widespread belief of investors that the US could again endure a 90s-styled boom- might blow up very rapidly if the American economy remains in recession for a longer period.

Still worse, the Enron collapse has put a question mark on the strength of the assets in the US. Far from being an isolated case, it could well speak volumes about the how sound the American finance system really is. This might smear the gleaning appeal exerted by the US markets on international investors.

This would be very dangerous indeed, because it has been the inflow of capital that underpinned the massive current account deficits of the US. This has reached record heights and it has kept growing, in spite of the recession at home, because exports fell more rapidly than imports in response to the recession abroad. Some analysts forecast it will stand at 6.2% of the GDP by mid 2003 -660 billion-, a groundbreaking record that will require the US to get 2 billion a day in order to pay for it. In other words, the US is running an untenable current account deficit. Its sudden undoing might precipitate the dollar into free fall, unleashing a massive flight of capital with disastrous consequences for the US financial markets, still blinded by their recent "glory days". This massive current account deficit is an expression of the unevenness in the world economy, which has grown largely dependent on the American powerhouse as the main spring of growth and economic vitality. Regarded from this angle, doing away with the US current account deficit might further still more the depressive tendencies, thus pushing the rest of the world down a road leading to protectionist measures, in the quest for self-sustained growth.

China and Russia after september 11

XXIII The September 11 attacks and the US response to them are provoking great changes in the inter-state relations. The most striking shift has been president Putin's turn in the direction of the West, particularly towards the US.

In the wake of Russia's default back in 1998, which signaled the failure of market reforms, the rise of Putin consolidated a Bonapartist regime relying on the security forces as its main prop, with the aim of salvaging the process of capitalist restoration as a whole. In the domestic front, its advance brought about an increased centralization detrimental to the autonomy of the regions and a tougher stance towards the oppressed nationalities, as shown in Chechnya. Placing himself as an arbiter of the different restorationist factions, it checked and suppressed some factions of the oligarchy and, favoured by the ruble devaluation and the rise of oil prices, it launched a process of capitalist accumulation -after years of destruction of productive forces, lack of investment and capital flight.

In the external front, Putin tried to establish a more favourable balance of forces to negotiate with imperialism -particularly the US- Russia's position as an emerging capitalist power. It tried to do so by seeking reliance in his nuclear muscle, in the links with "rogue" states and, above all, by forming a rather informal bloc with Beijing's restoranists against the US-hegemonic "unipolar world".

The turn that came after the September 11 attacks means that such policy has been dropped altogether, shifting to a temporal (shall we say strategic?) collaboration with the US. Russia has now placed itself as one the best pawns of the US to upkeep the status quo in the world, especially against a common enemy-Islamic fundamentalism. The economic grounds for such new role lie in Russia's new role within the international division of labour. It has gone from being an industrial goods and machinery producer for the third world to being an oil, gas and mineral-oriented exporter. Such new place within the world market can be seen in the "price war" that Russia unleashed against the OPEC countries, violating all the quotas imposed on crude production.
Putin's new orientation in foreign policy has come on top of such economic transformation, in an attempt to woo and regain the trust of world finance capital, which so far has been reluctant to engage in business in Russia, with the aim of completing the process of capitalist restoration. We are now confronted with the likelihood of Russia becoming a semi-colony -a quantum leap in the imperialist take-over of the country that would have massive consequences worldwide. The proposed entry of Russia into the WTO in next 2003 might be an anticipation of this.

The next few years ahead will be decisive for the course of the restoration in Russia. We cannot rule out the vicissitudes of war against terror nourishing new stand-offs, short-circuits or reversal in its flirtation with the US. The question mark placed on the permanent deployment of US troops in the former soviet republics of central Asia could well flare up the tempers. We cannot either rule out a strong backlash at home -where major reforms such as the elimination of the subsidies to the households at still in wait. That is why, in spite of his rallying with the US and the concessions he might be willing to give to imperialism, nothing reassures Putin that he will not end up as Gorbachev in his flirtation with the West -thus fuelling a tide of anti-American mood that might eventually turn against him.

XXIV China's entry into the WTO in November 2001 is a major event. It hallmarks a significant break-through in China's integration into the world capitalist economy. This will lead -in the next few years ahead- to bringing down the main barriers blocking a take-over by the multinational corporations (MNCs) of its economy (and domestic market). This, in turn, will result in millions of sackings, on top of the already high levels of unemployment.

Although lower than its previous records, China's growth of around 7% is still really surprising -given the recession bogging down the world economy. China remains today a major attraction for foreign direct investment (FDI) worldwide -not only as an assemblage base, but also increasingly as a full-blown producer in some industrial branches. Chinese "sweatshops" have muscled in, replacing neighbouring countries as a source of cheap labour, and even loom in the horizon of their distant counterparts -the Mexican "maquilas".

But in spite of such resounding political and economic achievements and also its low-profile involvement in the coalition against terror, the restorationist bureaucracy in Beijing fears that they could be left out of Bush's "new order".

The inroads of capitalist restoration have brought about a big economic growth, but also have widened the gap between the coastal zones linked to the world market and the hinterland, in a drive potentially threatening for its national unity. Such economic growth has increased China's appetites to be respected and considered a regional power aspiring to gain leverage on the world arena. Its rise is coming up against the interests of the imperialist powers presiding over the world market. Far from being able to put up with the emergence of a new rival power, they rather need to further stabilize and deepen their take-over and domination in those areas of the world, which provide markets, cheap labour and raw materials for world capitalism. Standing in utter opposition to this are the material interests of the oppressed and the exploited that are reluctant to pay for the massive cost of the restoration-semicolonisation. It also runs against the appetites of the restorationist bureaucracy that does not want become a new bourgeois class doomed to play a secondary role on the world arena.
This is what the Beijing bureaucracy fears the most. Although the war in Afghanistan eclipsed them, the US-China disputes -which in April 2001 ended in a diplomatic stand-off- will remain a major source of tension in the next period ahead. The suspicions of the Chinese bureaucracy towards Bush maoeuvering with Putin herald renewed conflict. Right now, it has cooled down the links with their strategic ally, Rusia. On top of this came Bush nuclear shield initiative, which threatens to render China's nuclear weaponry obsolete.

The euro and the drive to european integration

XXV The introduction of a common currency -the Euro- is, no doubt, a major break-through for European imperialist powers. Its launch will spurt the growth of intra-European trade and might also give momentum to the investments by big European MNCs. In spite of the fact that the dollar remains overwhelmingly the world's reserve currency -with the economic perks this entails for the US-, the launch of the Euro means Europe will be likely to compete with the US in this terrain also, with massive geopolitical consequences. In this sense, it represents a major break-through for the project of European integration.

However, the ongoing recession will put it to a hard test. Given the world recession is set to continue, unemployment is set to grow, and the fight for markets will also become harder. Against such background, the rigid conditions dictated by the Maastricht Treaty will deepen the crisis and fuel the contradictions among the various European states. The harsh fiscal tightening imposed by the European Central Bank, aimed at keeping inflation down is paramount. Such measures were used in the past to prevent weaker currencies from undermining the stability of the almighty deutschmark, but today are running against Germany's interest since its economy is undergoing a serious recession and needs a more expansive monetary policy and increased state spending. Schroeder, the German chancellor, might be faced with defeat in the forthcoming elections this year. He took office and promised he would cut down on unemployment, but it stands at exactly the same level than it was for years ago when he took office -4 million jobless.

The war in Afghanistan, in turn, and the disputes around subsidies and the arrangements aimed at rejuvenating European institutions to match the expansion to the east have all highlighted major differences between the smaller European states and the main powers in the region -with the former feeling overridden by the latter in the process of decision-taking. Among the big powers, France -which right into the early 90s had provided along with Germany an axis for the EU- sees its grip is being weakened due to the expansion towards the east and also the increasing weight of Germany in the world arena. Last but not least, the launch of the Euro has already provoked a crisis in the Italian government.

"Democratic reaction" is running dry

XXVI The "war against terror" has brought in its trail an unprecedented curtailment of democratic rights and also a centralization of the executive powers of the imperialist countries. The US is where those changes are all the more evident. A largely discredited Bush had taken office after the electoral scandal/fraud, but he is now enjoying 90% popularity. The past two months have witnessed the rise of an "imperial-styled presidency", shaped by the unilateral law-enforcement powers of the administration. The new USA Patriotic Act just passed by the Congress has deprived the judiciary from any faculty to check or monitor the electronic surveillance carried by the intelligence agencies or else the FBI. It also introduces long-term -and likely indefinite- detainment of strangers without any formal charge against being laid against them. But the presidency has also taken on new judicial faculties that do not require the approval of the Congress, such as the presidential decree dictating those people suspected of terrorism must be judged by a military court, or else a new regulation enabling the federal agents to record the conversations between the prisoners and their lawyers without having to request the permission of any court at all. Due to the thin line separating intelligence surveillance from delinquency control, the new powers bestowed onto the presidency are not limited to those cases involving terrorism, but can rather be extended to ordinary criminal investigations. All these show that there is long-term reactionary crusade at stake here seeking to impose new mechanisms of social surveillance fundamentally aimed against immigrants, but potentially targeting the whole population. This drive has gained momentum in the wake of September 11, but it has been intensified for some years now. They seek to curtail the legal rights conquered through great fights by the racial minorities, women, the gay community and other sectors throughout the century.

XXVII In the semi-colonial countries, both the world recession and the US-sponsored diplomatic (and sometimes military) onslaught are creating an enormous social and political polarization there. This is manifest in the weakness of the some governments and also the erosion of the social basis and the bulwark of bourgeois democracy, under the double pressure of imperialism's economic and political pressure on one hand, and the demands of the workers and the people, on the other.

Argentina is a paramount example. It is a highly industrialized semi-colonial country with an overwhelmingly urban population, and also the highest incomes in the region. For the first time ever, the masses brought down a democratically elected government. Bourgeois democracy was unable to contain the tensions that had bottled up, thus being replaced by both a beleaguered government and regime that are now busy trying to hoodwink and derail the masses' offensive. Both the political awakening of the masses and their revolutionary mobilizations run against the likelihood of the old ruling regime being restored in a peaceful fashion. It is most likely that new unstable governments will follow, seeking reliance in one of the fundamental struggling forces -the imperialist bourgeoisie or else the working class movement and the masses. Given the mounting imperialist pressure and all the conditions mentioned above, we cannot write off a sui generis Bonapartist government taking office. This might as well try to rely on the mass demonstrations to go for the nationalization of some major assets today in the hands of multinational corporations and the imperialist banks. This might well be an attempt at preserving the bourgeois regime as a whole, thus blocking the development of a proletarian revolution.
Such tendencies are inchoately at work in Venezuela right now. There, Chávez has passed new legislation timidly undermining the property rights of the landowners and increasing the share of the national state in the oil revenues. This had led to a head-on collision with the most powerful bosses' chambers and the landowning organizations.

XXVIII The centralization of power in the hands of the presidency, the reactionary backlash against the democratic rights in the imperialist countries, and the weakened semi-colonial regimes are all highlighting the limits of the democratic reaction (or democratic counter-revolution) agenda. This was a top leverage used by imperialism, hand in hand with military interventions. Such policy became a top priority for imperialism in the wake of its defeat in Vietnam. It was first implemented in a defensive fashion, and later on, in the 80s and 90s in a more and more offensive way. It was preemptively implemented in many semi-colonial countries, in most of which bourgeois democracy had been by and large absent throughout the XX century as a result of the massive political and economic instability and also a heightened class struggle in them.
Such policy was a weapon the US resorted to buttress the decline of its hegemony. In the 90s, it went along with "humanitarian" military interventions in some hotspots, like the Balkans or else Indonesia/East Timor and also reactionary pacts such as the Oslo Agreements or else the Peace Process in Ireland.

Already before September, the enormous contradictions at work in the world arena and the rise of Bush to power were heralding an erosion of such policies aimed pinning down the contradictions both at home and abroad.

The war on terror has fuelled this. In the next period ahead, then, the works of bourgeois democracy, "humanitarian" interventions and regional pacts will be rather exceptional. The openly reactionary nature of the war against Afghanistan, the failed attempt at restarting Arab-Israeli negotiations, and the military escalation by Israel are all sings of this. To these, we should add the support of imperialism to reactionary regimes (what Marxists call Bonapartist regimes).

A transitory situation

XXIX The deep going systemic recession has wreaked havoc on the neoliberal "paradigm" -as well as the slowdown in the 70s torpedoed the Keynesian orthodoxy. The dislocation of the inter-state system, along with the ailing "superpower" profile of the US, the tensions and the polarization between the classes in the wake of September 11 all speak of a new world situation.

This change is no short-term shift. The depth of the contradictions listed above point to the opening of a transitory situation that will usher in a new balance of forces between the classes, tipping the tables either in favour of imperialism or else the mass movement. Its nature will take on a definite shape only when the instability in the economic, social and political spheres of the world system is worked out. This will fuel great national struggles, such as the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, inter-state clashes (India and Pakistan) and also great class combats. Either the world working class and the oppressed peoples in the world step up their resistance -opening up revolutionary processes or situations in some semi-colonial countries and/or the advanced countries- or else imperialism will be able to impose a new reactionary outcome through a combination of setbacks and defeats.

September 11 marked the end of the preparatory phase, in which the neoliberal offensive was losing ground in a piecemeal fashion. It opened up a period of heightened class tensions, one in which both revolution and counter-revolution will take on a more definite shape -in contrast with the lower levels of class struggle of the last few decades, the byproduct of the derailed revolutions in the imperialist heartlands and a combination of bloody coups with low-intensity wars in the periphery that closed down the 1968-81 revolutionary upswing.

XXX From the standpoint of inter-imperialist relations, this new period is not as yet characterised by an open fight for world hegemony. The overwhelming political and military superiority of US imperialism writes off a short-term challenge to its domination on the part of its rival powers. Such imbalance of power between the US and its allies is to account for the rallying of the latter behind the politico-military goals of the US -this in spite of the big contradictions in the economic sphere, and to a lesser extent in that of politics and military affairs.
In the short term, the biggest threats to its hegemony come from the massive costs that go hand in hand with the role of the only superpower in a position to safeguard the status quo. A mishap in his quest to rebuild the imperial power profile might open up a strategic vacuum that might fuel a dispute with rival powers, thus pushing them in the direction of a bigger role in up keeping security and putting down the flare-ups in their spheres of influence. They might also be forced to get a leading position in international affairs, which might collide with the US long-term interest.

The class struggle

XXXI From the standpoint of the mass movement, the response of the working class and the oppressed worldwide to the new situation of a combined recession and imperialist warmongering is lagging far behind.
The workers, the unemployed, the urban poor and middle class layers that were the key actors of the "revolutionary days" of December 19 and 20 in Argentina are, no doubt, the most advanced sector, the vanguard of the working class and mass struggles worldwide. The downfall of De la Rúa's government is the last example in a whole series of mass uprisings that have brought down hated dictatorships and governments pushing ahead with the IMF agenda -Albania 1997, Indonesia in May 1998, Ecuador in 1997 and 2000, Serbia in 2000. In the Argentine case, the urban nature of the process might herald a new wave of struggle in Latin America, overcoming this time the peasant and popular nature of those struggles that have influenced the Latin American vanguard since the mid 90s -Chiapas, Ecuador, Bolivia.

The workers and the mass movement in the US are now placed in the opposite, conservative pole. They have rallied with their government pushed by the war hysteria and the patriotism cranked up by the chauvinistic AFL-CIO union bureaucracy. This is to account for the unchallenged wave of sackings -one the biggest and fastest ever in US history- that has hardly hit many immigrants and illegal workers, the first victims of a recession that is right now reaching out to the core of the industrial proletariat, the car industry workers.

The European working class, especially the Italian and French workers that were the vanguard in the mid 90s when it came to fighting back neoliberal governments, even resorting to political general strikes has been put on the defensive by and large -although we still see many partial strikes. It is still on the defensive, after socialdemocracy went into office, given the recession and the reactionary atmosphere now reigning in the advanced countries. The likelihood exists that Italy, where the Berlusconi government is pushing ahead to bring in more flexibility in terms of jobs and pensions for the benefit of corporations, a drive that has led the unions to break negotiations with it, will be first place where the social truce comes tumbling down.

XXXII From the standpoint of the oppressed nationalities, the most determined among them is the resistance being put by the Palestinian masses. Their fight for national liberation has grown from a mass revolt in the first months into a war combining terrorist and guerrilla attacks that has seriously affected the security of the Zionist state. Both the political and military pressure exerted on Arafat and other Al Fatah leaders aimed at getting them to check and jail the guerrillas might fuel a civil war there, aimed against the discredited Arafat's leadership in the first case if this seeks to put up with the demands of Israel. On the other hand, a military escalation by the Zionist state might spark off a mass national liberation war against Israel. Such perspective might destabilize the moderate Arab governments and also has the potential for provoking a regional war. So far, however, the masses in the region have remained by and large passive in the face of the Afghan war -partly because of the little enthusiasm that the police-styled regime of the Taliban inspired and also the preemptive repressive measures of the governments in the region. A new humiliation of the Palestinian case, or else renewed intervention against the beleaguered Iraqi people, might provoke an explosion of anti-American mood that might be also addressed against their own governments.

XXXIII The anti-capitalist movement, which had become a major political actor in the developed countries, has now been thrown into disarray in the wake of the reactionary September 11 attacks and the ensuing crusade and anti-democratic drive that accompanied the attacks on Afghanistan. Capitalising on the reigning reactionary atmosphere, the reformist wing of the movement has gained the upper hand. They separate the fight against corporations from the anti-imperialist struggle and seek to turn the radicalized youth away from the movement -the latter being the main actors of the vanguard actions in the "Battle of Genoa". The policies pursued by the European socialdemocracy -for example Jospin has publicly endorsed the so-called "Tobin Tax"- have led to the cooptation of important leaders of the anti-capitalist movement.

Although the quick denouement of the Afghan war prevented it from growing into a mass movement, an anti-war movement sprang up -in which sectors of the anti-capitalist movement participated. The main protests took place in Britain and Italy. In Italy, this movement came together with the first major struggles waged against Berlusconi. These precedents in two key US allies show that in the forthcoming second phase of the "war on terror" such movements might radicalize dramatically in a collision course against their own imperialist governments.

Winther the world situation?

XXXIV In the short-term, the situation seems to be heading in the direction of an unrivalled US domination -at least if one buys into the rampant triumphal mood of the US chief-of-staff and only sees the apparently unlimited scope of the unchallenged "crusade against terror." Such is the aim being pursued by the main policy-makers of the politico-military establishment in Washington. They are convinced that once their credentials of military invincibility have been restored, the world economy will recover and the US will be in an invulnerable position once again.

But this is not a likely scenario, however, if one adopts a long-term perspective. Such perspective should take into account the massive accumulation of economic contradictions, the inter-state system and the class struggle. Blinded in its crusade against terrorism, Washington has now become oblivious to the dangers in the world situation. The worsening of the recession worldwide -shown by Japan's slump- the strong inter-imperialist rivalry and also mass upheavals such as Argentina's all show that, notwithstanding Washington and its overriding prowess, it can not deal with the whole contradictions and tensions coming from the world situation. We cannot rule out that the US might try to turn things over by resorting to a big scale political and military intervention. Otherwise, the tendencies to increased instability will grow unchecked in the first years of twenty first century, with new atrocities and upheavals looming ahead, and also open clashes between revolution and counter-revolution -all these typical of the twentieth century. The revolutionaries are getting ready for such perspectives, leaving behind us all the nonsense and mumbo-jumbo of the last decade promising us a globalised, harmonious and peaceful world -which has revealed itself as a wretched lie after the September 11 attacks.

Empire or Imperialism? A debate with Giovanni Arrighi's "Long Twentieth Century"

Gustavo Dunga, Juan Chingo — 2009-06-07T21:59:42Z

The changes within world capitalism in the last thirty years since the end of the postwar boom have brought a significant theoretical discussion about both their scope and characteristics, and also their consequences for the prospects outlined by revolutionary Marxism. Thus, in the view of many contemporary thinkers, the globalisation of capitalist production and the world market have brought to life a new situation and a historical turn-about. This is the case with Toni Negri, autonomism's main theoretician, who upholds such views in his latest book, Empire, co-authored with Michael Hardt. They define the latter as the globalisation's new political order. Contrariwise, other theoreticians belonging to the school of historical sociology of the world system argue that, ever since its beginnings, capitalism has always operated as a world economy, thus rejecting the novelty of globalisation as a mere misinterpretation of history. One of the most notorious spokespersons of this strand is Giovanni Arrighi, who in the mid 90s went on to publish The Long Twentieth Century, a work where he poses such view. Such theoretical orientations challenge, from different angles, the classical definition of imperialism, such as it was formulated by Lenin and upheld by revolutionary Marxists in the bygone twentieth century.

The significance of this debate lies in the fact that the new developments call forth a reappraisal of the political, economical and social events, as a way to validate the Marxist categories that have been hammered out to grapple with the former. Regardless the changed situation, the current debate resembles the bustling theoretical and intellectual polemic that took place inside the international socialist movement -and also beyond it-, as free- concurrence capitalism grew into imperialism in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century. In the light of these new debates, new fundamentals questions for historical materialism and dialectics arise, to be able to grapple with the new challenges posed by the complex reality of the world and the new century. Such was Lenin's approach, who took up the categories of dialectics to respond to the complex new questions which had arisen out of the new phase of capitalism- the Great War among them. Lenin did not confine himself to a scholastic repetition of Marxist categories. Instead, he applied them to the new reality in a creative manner, taking on board -albeit in a critical fashion- insights furnished by his adversaries and co thinkers, such as Hilferding or Kautky, and even by bourgeois liberal ideologues such as Hobson, while ridding them of the reformist overtones infused by their authors. In Lenin's view, it was a matter of putting together those breakthroughs, building them into a new set-up that should highlight the revolutionary potential enshrined within the new epoch then unfolding before his eyes.

The two strands of thought we are taking issue with carry the merit of being endeavours to furnish a global overview of contemporary reality. However, the shortcomings of their theoretical approach prevents them from accurately understanding, no matter the findings and the genuine questions underpinning their contributions, the shifts within the world order in the last thirty years. That is why before dwelling on our own view, we shall make a critical appraisal of Negri's and Arrighi's postulates, which in turn shall enable us to understand better and more profoundly the classical Marxist method, as it was postulated in the new epoch by Lenin and Trotsky.

In this article we will criticise the those two strands of thought challenging the postulates on imperialism, taking up the materialist dialectic approach to analyse world capitalism, in an updated view that shall enable us to grapple with present-day reality.

The "Long Twentieth Century"

The purpose of this book is to set out how the decline of American hegemony and the crisis of accumulation of the 70s (a reflection of which was the flotation of the dollar that put an end to the gold standard dictated by the Bretton Woods agreements, along with the American defeat in Vietnam) have both been a watershed in the history of world capitalism. In order to explain the shifts in the world today, Arrighi claims that we have to go back and place this crisis in the framework of the protracted record of cycles of capitalist accumulation. Drawing on Ferdinand Braudel and his approach, Arrighi builds up a massive analytical and historical work that tackles with the four systemic cycles of capitalist accumulation, the four "long centuries" which place the American century at the end of a series of centuries- Genoa's, the Netherlands' and the British century.

From this historical perspective, Arrighi shows that there is nothing new to the crisis of the 70s. What capitalism is going through today under America's rule, it had already been through under the domination of the British, the Dutch before them, and the Genoese right at the onset of capitalist expansion. The crisis points to a transition, a watershed that has been common to every systemic cycle of accumulation, in which there has been a first phase characterised by material expansion, investment into production, then a second phase of financial expansion, including speculation. Such transition to a financial expansion, which in the author's view took place in the early 80s in the American case, always bears an "atmosphere of doom" (in Braudel's words), pointing to the end of a systemic cycle. It also highlights the decline of American hegemony over the world system, since in Arrighi's view the end of long century goes hand in hand with a geographic shift of the heartland underpinning the systemic process of capital accumulation. In his own words, "Shifts of this kind have occurred through all the crises and financial expansions that have borne their mark on the transition from a systemic cycle of accumulation to another." Arrighi claims that the U.S. has given way to Japan so that the latter will preside over the coming long cycle of capitalist accumulation.

Arrighi: the rejection of the class struggle as history's driving force

Arrighi's theoretical edifice on the series of systemic cycles of accumulation supersedes the Marxian tenet regarding the class struggle as the driving force of history. As with every cyclic theory, it is not human action, the human agency, the one that shapes the course of history, but the objective laws of capitalist accumulation. Change is brought about by a structural build up of contradictions. Such view on history precludes any chance of a revolutionary break up and transformation within society, just allowing for a cyclical repetition -although a more complex one every time- of the state bodies and the capitalist enterprise, the dialectic between the state and capital, the only agents of change within the historical process perceived by Arrighi.

The "systemic chaos" sparked off by the end of the phase of capitalist accumulation and the onset of the financial expansion of the hegemonic power that also provokes an increased inter-state competition among the main powers and also heightened social developments, always end up in the replacement of an old hegemony by a new emerging state and economic power. The outcome of this is a steady increase in the complexity, the size and the might of the leading agencies of capitalist history, a process that can be summed up as follows.

Thus, the Genoese regime was based upon a city-state of small size and simple organization, which actually had very little power. Its strength lay in its widespread commercial and financial links that enabled it to deal with most of the mighty, territory-based European rulers on an equal foot, and which were the at the base of its symbiotic bond with the rulers of the kingdom of the Spanish peninsula.

The United Provinces were a much bigger and more complex organization than their Genoese predecessor, a hybrid kind of organization combining some features of medieval city-states now withering away with features of the emerging nation-states.

Then, Arrighi claims, "Great Britain was not only a full blown nation-state and, as such, a much bigger and more complex organization than the United Provinces at any time; it was also conquering a commercial and territorial empire of world dimensions that would furnish its ruling circles and its capitalist class with an unprecedented rule over the human and natural resources of the entire world."

Lastly, in the words of the same author, "…the U.S. were already something more than a full-blown nation-state. They were a continental industrial-military complex endowed with a power strong enough so as to give efficacious protection to a number of subordinated governments and allies, and to live up to its threats of economic strangulation or military annihilation aimed at rival governments anywhere in the world."

However, regardless of the valuable historical elements he contributes with, such series of systemic cycles of accumulation whose origin and evolution is governed by a self-repeating pattern fails to explain away the actual operation of the capitalist mode of production. As every cyclic theory does, it just describes a kernel of efficient causes that fails to incorporate the driving forces at work behind the motion, it just describes a contingent sequence of events. In this way, Arrighi relapses in some sort of empiricism at odds with historical materialism, for which the source of motion lies in the contradiction and its laws of development arise from the process of interpenetration of the opposing poles of the contradiction.

History and structure of the world capitalist market

The outcome of such approach combining a changing hierarchy between the state power and the capitalist enterprise is a view on the history and the structure of the world capitalist market is an outright rejection of the fact that its development contains within it the existence of different relationships of production. In this way, it confounds the development of the world market, brought to life by merchant capital, a prerequisite for the unfolding of the capitalist mode of production in the fringes of the feudal mode of production, placing the origin the capitalist world market some 500 years ago, along with the flourishing of the Italian city-states in the Renaissance.

Secondly, it overlooks the fact that the existence of the world market can only be understood as the by-product of the consolidation of the capitalist mode of production, as a dominant regime of production, and that its setting up poses that "…an articulate system of capitalist relationships of production, semi-capitalist and pre-capitalist ones, linked to each other by capitalist relationships of exchange and dominated by the world capitalist market." The coming to life of the capitalist world market, with these features, can only be found from the industrial revolution onwards, which took place in the late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century.

In the third place, it puts and equal sign between the capitalist economy and commodity exchange, overlooking the fact that under capitalism, the distinctive feature is the pursuit of surplus value, which is churned out of industrial production, being the latter the driving force of the expansion of world commerce. In Marx's words, "the world market constitutes in itself the basis for this regime of production. On the other hand, its inherent need to produce on an ever increasing scale contributes to the steady expansion of the world market, therefore not being commerce the one to spur industry, but contrariwise, the latter spurs commerce."
The conclusion of such theoretical schema is that it fails to differentiate the phases of the development of capitalism. If outbound expansion is a feature of the capitalist mode of production since the beginning, i.e., since the industrial revolution, in the history of capitalism in the last 200 years or so, we can see two phases. As Ernest Mandel points out: "In the epoch of free concurrence capitalism, the direct production of surplus value by big industry was confined to Western Europe and North America. The process of primitive accumulation of capital, however, was going on in many other places of the world at the same time, never mind the tempo was uneven…Foreign capital, of course, flowed into the countries which were industrializing themselves, but was unable to take over the process of accumulation."

Mandel goes on, "In the epoch of imperialism there was a turn-about in this whole structure. The process of primitive accumulation of capital in the formerly non capitalistic economies was therefore submitted to the reproduction of the big capital coming from the West. From now on, the export of capital from the imperialist countries, but not the process of original accumulation of capital, was to shape the economic development of what later came to be known as the 'Third World'. The latter was thus forced to meet the needs of capitalist production in the metropolitan countries…The process of imperialist export of capital thus suffocated the economic development of the so-called 'Third World'…."
Arrighi and his theory of cycles overlooks this quantum leap in the structure of capitalist accumulation worldwide. Quoting Ferdinand Braudel -and discussing against a major feature of the classical definition of imperialism, the emergence of finance capital (an issue Lenin took from Hilferding)- he argues that: "Hilferding regards the world of capital as a series of possibilities, within which the finance type, a very recent outcome according to him, has tended to prevail over the rest, penetrating them from within. It is an opinion with which I would agree, with the reservation that I understand that the plurality of capitalism goes well back into time. Finance capitalism was no recently-born baby in the early twentieth century. I would even argue that in the past, let us say, in Genoa or Amsterdam…finance capital was already able to take over and rule during some time at least, over all of the endeavours of the business world." In this quotation, we clearly see how the cyclic kernel of capitalist accumulation is completely misleading when it comes to understanding the quantum leaps within that mode of production. Such overlapping of historical epochs stems from the weakness of the concepts. How can we compare the money capital hoarded by the merchants living in the city-states of Italy and the Netherlands, which was used to give loans to the several European dynasties, with the surplus capital (churned out of big industry) accumulated in the main developed countries in the late nineteenth century, a by-product itself of the concentration and centralization of capital within the boundaries of the nation-state had reached its limit? Such surplus capital underpinned the unprecedented extension of capital's geographic boundaries reaching out to the whole world. Such outbound expansion of national capital inexorably led to a chaotic competence for the resources, the markets and the control of the routes for foreign trade, which are at the base of struggle for the scramble of the world that reached momentum in the World War I. This was nothing but a symptom that the development of the productive forces had out flowed the borders of the nation-state, that imperialism deepens the contradiction between the growth of the productive forces of the world economy, and the borders separating nations and states against each other. This is also a symptom, in turn, that the contradiction between the qualitatively increased social production, such as the monopolies which embraced vertically under a single control different phases of production, and the private appropriation of social wealth. Such structural contradictions, inherent to the capitalist mode of production burst open in the early twentieth century, thus ushering in a new phase of capitalist development. This new phase of decline and agony does not preclude the contradictions at work in the capitalist mode of production, but incorporates additional laws presiding over its works. Arrighi, with his theory of cycles, fails to understand this. But it was Marx the one to point out that "The are special laws presiding over the origin, the existence, the development and the death of a given social organism, and also its replacement."

The onset of this new epoch had brought to life something new: the first victorious proletarian revolution, the 1917 Russian Revolution. Such extension of capital's domains, that bringing to life the mighty reality of the capitalist world market, had ripened the objective conditions that were to radically alter the nature of the epoch, putting proletarian revolution right on the agenda. Ever since, we cannot understand the dynamics of capitalist accumulation without taking into account the powerful revolutionary leverage of the proletariat and the oppressed worldwide. It is here where the schema furnished by Arrighi collides head-on with the reality of the "long twentieth century", one that was characterised by a persistent class struggle, wars and revolutions, not only in those moments when "systemic chaos" reigned supreme, using his own words, but when "material expansion" was under way (such as the postwar boom). Those have shattered the metropolitan countries from time to time, whereas they have been present in the periphery continuously.

Following his own schema, Arrighi notes that "…as time elapsed, the cycles have grown shorter. As we move on from the early stages to the latter phases of capitalist development, the systemic regimes of accumulation have taken less time to come to life, develop and be superseded." This speeding up of history's tempo is a fact of the contemporary world. However, Arrighi fails to understand the fundamental reason for such shortening of history's tempo: the social power accumulated by the workers movement and the masses, and the upheaval of the colonial and semicolonial peoples in pursue of their liberation. These two substantial elements have impinged on the dynamics of capitalist rule in the century now bygone. That is why in this book, it goes unnoticed to cast aside, in his own words, "the class struggle and the polarization of the world economy in peripheral and central areas, processes both that have played a preeminent role in my original view of the long twentieth century." In this way, with a one-sided approach, one of which he is aware, he undoes the dialectic unity between the economy, the inter-state relationships and the class struggle, the one and only accurate starting point for an all-round understanding of today's capitalism, and even the issue of the links between money and power, an aimed pursued by Arrighi in this book.

Empire

In this book, Negri and Hardt hold that globalisation has brought about a decline of sovereignty, since it relied on the nation-state, and also an ever-decreasing ability to regulate the cultural and economic exchanges: "The sovereignty of the nation-state was the cornerstone of the imperialisms that European powers constructed throughout the modern era. By 'Empire,' however, we understand something altogether different from 'imperialism'. The boundaries defined by the modern system of nation-states were fundamental to European colonialism and economic expansion: the territorial boundaries of the nation delimited the center of power from which rule was exerted over exteral foreign countries through a system of channels and barriers that alternately facilitated and obstructed the flows of production and circulation. Imperialism was really an extension of the sovereignty of the European nation-states beyond their own boundaries." However, this does not mean the end of sovereignty altogether, but the coming to life of a new type, made up of a whole new series of national and supranational agencies, gathered together by a new common logic of rule, such would be what they call Empire. "In contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers". For them, these transformations in the political order worldwide point to a shift within the capitalist mode of production.

It has put an end to the spatial divisions of the "worlds" known under Yalta, the First World (western powers), the Second World (the USSR and the European East) and the Third World (semicolonial world), for it is now possible to find the First World within the Third, the Third World within the First, whereas the Second World is nowhere to be seen. This has gone hand in hand with a transformation of the dominant productive process, one in which the role played by industrial, factory-based labour has by and large subsided, while communicative, cooperative and affective labour have all become predominant. The outcome is that "postmodernity" holds a firm grip on the global economy.

Against those who regard the U.S. as the ultimate source of authority presiding over the unfolding of globalisation and the new world order, either to praise it as the leader of the world and sole superpower, or else those who loathe the renewed imperialist oppression, the autonomist theoretician and his cothinker postulate that "Our basic hypothesis, however, that a new imperial form of sovereignty has emerged, contradicts both these views. The United States does not, and indeed no nation-state can today, form the center of an imperialist project. Imperialism is over.No nation will be world leader in the way modern European nations were."

Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt: an overestimation of the class struggle

If Giovanni Arrighi overemphasizes the role of the structure, up to the point of writing off the human agency as the driving force of social transformations, Negri and his literary fellow, Hardt elevate the latter to unprecedented heights. Thus, Negri takes issue against Arrighi in his Empire as follows: "What concerns us more is that in the context of Arrighi's cyclical argument it is impossible to recognize a rupture of the system, a paradigm shift, an event. Instead, everything must always return, and the history of capitalism thus becomes the eternal return of the same. In the end, such a cyclical analysis masks the motor of the process of crisis and restructuring. Even though Arrighi himself has done extensive research on working-class conditions and movements throughout the world, in the context of this book, and under the weight of its historical apparatus, it seems that the crisis of the 1970s was simply part of the objective and inevitable cycles of capitalist accumulation, rather than the result of proletaran and anticapitalist attack both in the dominant and in the subordinated countries. The accumulation of these struggles was the motor of the crisis, and they determined the terms and nature of capitalist restructuring."
We agree with Negri that the wave of working class and people's struggles that swept through the imperialist countries, the bureaucratised workers states and the semicolonial countries since the late 60s, and that went through the following decade (although with ebbs and tides), meant a shift in the balance of forces favourable for the mass movement, a period where the oppressed moved to the offensive against imperialism.

Notwithstanding that, one cannot say that "The accumulation of these struggles was the motor of the crisis, and they determined the terms and nature of capitalist restructuring." In this way, he endows the class struggle with absolute powers, taking issue against Arrighi -who abuses of the structural elements in his theoretical postulates- in an abstract way. The inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, i.e., the relationship between the development of the productive forces and the relationships of production is downplayed because crises are regarded as the direct by-product of the power of labour.
At a more general level, the agency and the structure are strongly intertwined, and if one separates any of these poles, giving primacy to one over another is a big mistake. To give an absolute value to structural contradictions within the mode of production results in a closed structure devoid of any chance of revolutionary transformation through human action, therefore relapsing in a cyclic kernel, a feature we have already taken issue with in Arrighi and the school of the world system. Likewise, Negri's elevation of the class struggle leads him to downplay the material contradictions that provide the substrate for the class struggle to unfold. He also forgets that the former becomes history's driving force when the structural contradictions come to the surface. Such moments are the watersheds in history's evolution. In other words, social developments play a predominant role when the contradictions have ripened. In this sense, we agree with an old polemic book by Anderson in which he claimed: "…according to historical materialism, among the most fundamental mechanisms of social change we find the systematic contradictions between the productive forces and the relationships of production, and not only social conflicts between the classes nourished by antagonistic relationships of production. The former overlap with the latter because one of the biggest forces of production is always labour, which in turn constitutes a distinct class due to the relationships of production. However, they do not coincide with each other. The crises of the modes of production are not identical with the clashes between the classes. They can fuse with each other occasionally. The onset of major economic crises, both under feudalism and capitalism has often caught the social classes unawares, since they stemmed from the structural depths lying beneath the direct clash between them. On the other hand, the resolution of such crises has been brought about quite often as a result of protracted clashes between the classes. As a matter of fact, the revolutionary transformations -from a mode of production to another- are as a rule the privileged terrain for the class struggle."

As to the 70s, the increased organic composition of capital boosted during the boom and the subsequent fall in the rate in the profit, plus political developments such as sharpened inter-imperialist rivalries due to the emergence of powers like Germany and Japan -in other words, a ripening of structural factors- were all causes that pushed the exploited classes onto the scene worldwide. This, in turn, dislodged the postwar world order. It also disrupted the equilibrium between the states, the classes and inside the economy that had allowed for the boom, thus ushering in a period of crisis of accumulation for capital. Such crisis is the reflection of this combination of elements, but not a direct reflection of the power of labour.

In turn, this power of labour "dictates the terms and the nature of capitalist restructuration". As Negri puts it in his work: "The revolting masses, their desire for liberation, their experiments to construct alternatives, and their instances of constituent power have all at their best moments pointed toward the internationalization and globalization of relationships, beyond the divisions of national, colonial, and imperialist rule. In our time this desire that was set in motion by the multitude has been addressed (in a strange and perverted but nonetheless real way) by the construction of Empire. One might even say that the construction of Empire and its global networks is a response to the various struggles against the modern machines of power, and specifically to class struggle driven by the multitude's desire for liberation. The multitude called Empire into being."

There is little doubt that the upsurge in the 70s aimed against the two mainstays of the postwar order eroded the partition of the world in three distinct areas (metropolitan countries, "the second periphery" or the degenerate and deformed workers states, and the semicolonial countries or the so-called "Third World") that had shaped the class struggle during that historical period, due to the grip of the counterrevolutionary apparatuses (socialdemocrats, stalinists and bourgeois nationalists). The struggle waged by the Vietnamese masses and the solidarity movement that emerged in the imperialist countries, both of which paralysed the U.S. imperialist military machine, was the most eloquent proof of this. We cannot deny that that mass upsurge drove capital to seek for a response in the direction of undermining the bases of the power of labour, one that later on took the shape of the neoliberal offensive and the so-called globalisation that goes hand in hand with it. But claiming that the "terms and the nature of the capitalist restructuring" were the direct result of such accumulation of struggles overlooking the outcome of those fights is simply to glorify the class struggle in itself. The moments of capitalist accumulation are determined by the different phases and the corresponding shifts in the balance of forces between the classes. During the "dress rehearsal" back in 1968, although the industrial working class fought tooth and nail, the proletariat was unable to find a solution for its decade-long crisis of revolutionary leadership and thus could not win decisive victories over imperialism. In failing to do so, they gave time for it to rally its ranks, thus letting the unfolding of the neoliberal offensive get through. Such policies set in the early 80s, but the Brezhnev counterrevolution that had crushed the 1968 "Prague spring" and the Polish events a decade later paved the way for them. To these, we should add the policy of the CPs and the socialdemocracy that worked for the derailment of the upsurge in France and Italy, as well as the anti-dictatorial struggles in Portugal and Spain, and also the responsibility of the CPs in the debacle of the revolutionary upheaval in South America.

Hinging upon this balance of forces, the endogenous mechanisms of the capitalist accumulation gradually prevailed, i.e., the need to offset the tendency of the rate of profit to fall through the incorporation of new regions with cheap raw materials and labour, the ceaseless search of superprofits by monopolies and the constant technological revolution need for this, the wave of mergers and acquisitions as a fetter to competition.

Both elements, the derailment and the defeat of the "accumulation of struggles" in the 70s, and the imperialist backlash fuelled by the crisis of accumulation, were to dictate the terms of the capitalist restructuring, and not just the first element alone, making abstraction of outcome of the class combats

A ultrasubjectivist theory of a mysterious and phantasmagoric subject

The downplaying of the structural contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of production and the overestimation of the subject are manifested in the new theoretical scheme proposed by Negri and Hardt to define the "Empire" as a new phase of capitalism that leaves imperialism behind. Breaking up the dialectic unity between the relationships of production and the class struggle, they attempt a recreation of materialism that is vitiated by the hypertrophy of the subject, a subjectivists theory where the structure holds no barriers, it does not constraint the human agency, even more, the former is a mere consequence of his action. This can be clearly seen when the Italian philosopher and his literary co thinker claim that: "Theories of the passages to and beyond imperialism that privilege the pure critique of the dynamics of capital risk undervaluing the power of the real efficient motor that drives capitalist development from its deepest core: the movements and struggles of the proletariat...History has a logic only when subjecitivity rules it, only when (as Nietzsche says) the emergence of subjectivity reconfigures efficient causes and final causes in the development of history. The power of the proletariat consists precisely in this...The old analyises of imperialism will not be sufficient here because in the end they stop at the threshold of the analysis of subjectivity and concentrate rather on the contradictions of capital's own developmet. We need to identify a theoretical schema that puts the subjectivity of the social movements of the proletariat at center stage in the processes of globalization and the constitution of global order." The emphasis between the role played by structural contradictions and the conscious human agency, of working out organic crises, has been displaced from the former to the latter throughout the centuries through which the history of mankind has unfolded. In the epoch of proletarian revolution, the subjective factor acquires a decisive role. The transformation heralded by proletarian revolution constitutes the most conscious step humanity has ever taken. The transition from feudalism to capitalism, in a certain way, is in-between (in the sense that the take over of the means of production comes before the seizing of political power by the bourgeoisie) when compared to the downfall of the Roman Empire and the Russian Revolution. Nonetheless, in spite of the predominant role played by the subjective factor -and its most developed form: the organization of the masses in soviets as organs of power led by a revolutionary party- one cannot appraise the outcome of these transformations through endowing subjectivity with an absolute power as a change agent in the world. Such is the view the Bolsheviks had of themselves: "…one of the historical factors, its 'conscious' factor, a very important but not a decisive one. We have never sinned of historical subjectivism. We regarded the class struggle -standing on the basis provided by the productive forces- as the decisive factor, not only at a national level but also internationally."

Negri and Hardt relapse in such historical subjectivism when they claim that: "History has a logic only when subjecitivity rules it, only when (as Nietzsche says) the emergence of subjectivity reconfigures efficient causes and final causes in the development of history". Their subjectivism, however, is of a different type to that mentioned in Trotsky's quote mentioned above. It is not a subjectivism relying on a revolutionary party. It is neither a strand of subjectivism stemming from the revolutionary maturity or learning of the working class, i.e., the process of becoming a class for itself from a class in itself, the achievement of its political independence with regards to the bourgeoisie, which only can be brought about through the experience of the class itself and its bound with a revolutionary party. This is not the case with Negri and Hardt,, for whom the becoming of the subject does not hinge upon these achievements, but rather on ever-present grounds for liberation.

Building on a logic of an unreal subject ("the multitude") that bears no correspondence at all with an empirically-set subject, they proceed to blur the objective positions of the different exploited classes within the capitalist mode of production, the centrality of the proletariat in particular as the social subject of the socialist revolution. Such phantom-like subject built by them, omnipresent and pure potential, has no need for programmes, strategic and tactics, let alone a revolutionary party to accomplish its historic mission.

Hence, when the authors of Empire are faced with the setting of the early 80s and most of the 90s, when neoliberalism gained momentum and the actual subject is in retreat and atomized, a far cry from the "constituent flames" of the 70s, their theoretical framework turns out to be completely unable to deal with reality. This comes to light when they explain why the U.S. has been able to hold on to its hegemony throughout the crisis. Thus, they claim that "The answer lies in large part, perhaps paradoxically, not in the genius of U.S. politicians or capitalists, but in the power and creativity of the U.S. proletariat...in terms of the paradigm of international capitalist command, the U.S. proletariat appears as the subjective figure that expressed most fully the desires and needs of international or multinational workers. Against the common wisdom that the U.S. proletariat is weak because of its low party and union representation with respect to Europe and elsewhere, perhaps we should see it as strong for precisely those reasons. Working-class power resides not in the representative institutions but in the antagonism and autonomy of the workers themselves...In order to understand the continuation of U.S. hegemony, then, it is not sufficient to cite the relations of force that U.S. capitalism wielded over the capitalists in other countries. U.S. hegemony was actually sustained by the antagonistic power of the U.S. proletariat". This is really surprising. If there is a place where the bourgeoisie in the last twenty years has been able to overcome the fetters imposed by labour onto accumulation, that place is the U.S. As the Reagan onslaught unfolded, and later continued into the 90s, the American workers endured a massive retreat through a combination of defeats and the fear of the 1979-82 recession that brought about a hike of unemployment. It led to a big loss of conquests, a massive wage loss, the lengthening of the working day, which as a whole allowed for a significant increase of the rate of exploitation and a recovery of corporate profits. It is these factors that account for the relative strength of the U.S. in the face of its competitors and also lay the basis for its continued hegemony -along with the U.S. privileged position within the world finance system. Nonetheless, the analysis proposed by Negri and Hardt writes off this material reality, replacing it by a subjectivist approach. Thus, the objective balance of forces between the classes is replaced by the "desires" of the workers. As to the trade union and political level, it is true that the union and political representatives of the European workers is a reformist one or has been bought off by the bourgeoisie. But celebrating the weakness of the trade union organization and the lack of any class representation in the American bipartisan system as proof of strength is nonsensical. The low level of organization of the American working class is the result of a fierce opposition of the American bourgeoisie to giving the slightest right of organization to the workers on one hand, and the political and conservative backwardness of the working class stemming from the dominant position of the U.S., on the other. As we see, autonomism and its ultrasubjectivist approach, whose historical origin goes back to the euphoria of the struggles in the 60s and the 70s combined with the (justified) repulsion of many left Marxist intellectuals with Althusser's structuralism and anti-humanism, is totally unable to understand the present-day world.

A new "ultra-imperialism"

From such new theoretical framework, it flows that the becoming of the Empire "as a global order, a new logic and structure of government, shortly a new form of sovereignty going hand in hand with the world markets and the world network of production"- in the words of the authors. When working out their subjectivist approach to the very end, they dissolve the capitalist competence and the fight for world supremacy by the rival capitalist states still at work in the imperialist phase- although disguised in new, more complex forms- into such "global order".

In the early twentieth century, Kautsky, when analyzing the first "wave of globalisation", foresaw a progressive withering away of interimperialist contradictions, a process that should culminate in "ultraimperialism". In his schema, the international merger of capital has developed so much so as to make the distinct economic interests of the different international capital owners fade away. In his Der Imperialismus, published in Die Neue Zeit on November 11, 1914, he claimed that: "Thus, from a purely economic standpoint one cannot rule out that capitalism will outlive itself to another phase, the cartelisation in foreign policy: a phase of ultraimperialism, against which we shall, of course, fight against as resolutely as do against imperialism, but one which poses dangers of a different kind, not those of an arms race and the threat to world peace." Lenin did not rule out the possibility that a bigger concentration and centralization of capital on an international level may take place. He claimed that the long-term "logic" tendency led to the establishment of a single world-embracing concern. But he argued that before such "logical" conclusion should come about, capitalism would blow itself up as a result of its increased internal contradictions and the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world altogether. In his preface to Bukharin's Imperialism and the World Economy, he wrote: "There is no question that the development is heading towards a single world trust that will swallow up al of the enterprises and the states with no exception. But on the other hand, the development is unfolding under such circumstances, tempo, contradictions, stand-offs, upheavals -not only economic ones, but of a political and national kind, etc- that before we end up with a single world trust, a worldwide 'ultraimperialist' union of national finance capitals, the break-up of imperialism shall be inexorably unavoidable and capitalism will be turned into its contrary."

The key of Lenin's policy lay in the revolutionary perspective, but one that was not worked out due to sole voluntarism, but one that flowed from an objective analysis of the contradictions at work within capitalist development. In this, he differed from Kautsky and his "profoundly reactionary wish to smooth out the contradictions" (in Lenin's words), a stand from which his deeply pacifists conclusions stemmed from.
Negri and Hardt want to emulate Lenin's revolutionary policy and his struggle for a revolutionary international, in their own words: "there is an implicit alternative embedded in Lenin's work: either communist revolution or Empire". But they devoid this alternative of any objective basis for its realization. If Kautsky, out of sheer economism, arrives to the theory of "ultraimperialism" and to deny the existence of contradictions, Negri and Hardt, in turn, come to the same conclusion through their subject-focused approach, albeit they do not share the reformist conclusions drawn by the former. This can be seen in the following argument: "The analyses of the state and the world market also become possible in Empire for another reason, becausse at this point in development class struggle acts without limit on the organization of power. Having achieved the global level, capitalist development is faced directly with the multitude, without mediation. Hence the dialectic, or really the science of the limit and its organization, evaporates. Class struggle, pushing the nation-state toward its abolition and thus going beyond the barriers posed by it, proposes the constitution of Empire as the site of analysis ad conflict. Without the barrier, then, the situation of struggle is completely open. Capital and labor are opposed in a directly antagonistic form. This is the fundamental condition of every political theory of communism."

Such denial of dialectics bears its consequences. Here, there view of the world reality turns out to be completely abstract. It is true that the internationalization of the productive forces and the ensuing internationalization of capital, and the objective basis for the internationalization of the class struggles with them, have all increased ten-fold in the last one hundred years, when compared with the time at which Lenin wrote his notorious pamphlet on imperialism. Because of this, the need for proletarian internationalism flowing from such basis has grown stronger than ever. Hence, we share their criticism of the "thirld world" perspectives, one of the strongest arguments put forward by them in their new road. But the authors of Empire wrongly regard the current reality of capitalism as a tendency, turning the tendency to the internationalization of capital into a demiurge, which in turn transforms their whole interpretation of reality into an abstraction that leaves out the role of mediations. In this way, their methodological approach is ridden with the same flaws as those Lenin criticized in Kautsky's, although they regard "ultraimperialism" not as a possibility (in a "dream" according to the Bolshevik leader) but as an actual reality. As Lenin said: "In this yearning to turn away from the reality of imperialism and to take refuge in the pipedream of the 'ultraimperialism', one we do not know whether or not is feasible, there is not even the slightest shed of Marxism. Within such schema Marxism is taken on board for this 'new phase of capitalism' whose chances of becoming are not even guaranteed by its own creator, but for the present, already existent, phase, a deeply reactionary and petty bourgeois yearning to smooth out the contradictions prevails instead."

Negri's and Hardt's logical operation, paired with their rejection of dialectics, blurs the actual structure of the world system and the contradictions flowing from it, i.e., the different hierarchies of countries within the capitalist world economy both at the centre and the periphery, the struggle for hegemony between the rival central powers, the world division between oppressive and oppressed countries and the concrete intermingling of the working class struggle and the people's sector in the latter with the masses of imperialist heartlands, and thus the need to put forward both a revolutionary tactic and strategy. What comes out of this is an attack against the Leninist theory of the revolutionary party, since there is no need to take on the "weakest" link of the imperialist chain, but rather the "virtual centre" of the Empire can be conquered from any other point, such as they say in the following lines. Hence, "From the point of view of the revolutionary tradition, one might object that the tactical successes of revolutionary actions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were all characterized precisely by the capacity to blast open the weakest link of the imperialist chain, that this is the ABC of revolutionary dialectics, and thus it would seem today that the situation is not very promising. It is certainly true that the serpentine struggles we are witnessing today do not provide any clear revolutionary tactics, or maybe they are completely incomprehensible from the point of view of tactics. Faced as we are with a series of intensive subversive social movements that attack the highest levels of imperial organization, however, it may be no longer usseful to insist on the old distinction between strategy and tactics. In the constitution of Empire there is no longer an 'outside' to power and thus no longer weak links-if by weak link we mean an external point where the articulations of global power are vulnerable. To achieve significance, every struggle must attack at the heart of Empire, at its strength. The fact, however, does not give priority to any geographical regions, as if only social movements in Washington, Geneva or Tokyo could attack the heart of Empire. On the contrary, the construction of Empire, and the globalization of economic and cultural relationships, means that the virtual center of Empire can be attacked from any point."

It is true that the increased internationalisation of capital has shortened the distances between the centre and the periphery of the world, and that the developments in the alter bounce back on the imperialist heartlands more strongly than in the past. But in spite of this, the fact remains -even for any sensible observer- that the U.S. and Indonesia are vulnerable to a very greatly different degree, to put an extreme case, thus showing the validity of Lenin's concept of the weakest link as the mainstay of the theory of world revolution, regarded as a concrete process stemming from the internal contradictions of world capitalism.

A strange coincidence

We have already said that Negri and Hardt's "theoretical subjectivism" revolves around an abstract polarization against the views of "theoretical structuralism" of the world system school and its cyclic patterns in the historical evolution of capitalism. But quite surprisingly, and despite this methodological difference, Arrighi in his Long Twentieth Century arrives at the same conclusion at the onset of the twenty first century, postulating a structure of the world system that is quite similar to that of the Empire as a world order of "globlisation". Thus, he argues that "The modern interstate system has consequently acquired its present global dimension through a series of successive hegemonies of an ever-expanding scope that have consequently reduced the exclusivity of the right of sovereignty really enjoyed by its member states. If this process were to carry on, nothing but a true world government such as that contemplated by Roosevelt would meet the condition that the next world hegemony should have a territorial and operational scope much extended than the precedent…Has the western world ruled by the American hegemony attained such a degree of world power so as to be on the verge of putting an end to the capitalist history in the way it has been shaped within the system of expansion of the modern interstate system?…the obverse of this process of formation of a world government is the crisis of the territorial states as efficacious instruments of dominion." Further on, in the conclusion, he postulates, on the basis that Japan controls world liquidity but remains defenceless on the military terrain, quite the opposite of the U.S. that still enjoy a de facto monopolistic control of the use of violence, that: "Such peculiar configuration of the world power seems to fit perfectly into another of those 'memorable alliances' between the power of the arms and the power of money that has pushed forward the capitalist world economy both in space and time since the late fifteen century. All those 'memorable alliances', except for the first one, the Iberian-genoese one, were alliances between entrepreneurial elites and governmental groups that belonged to the same state: the United Provinces, the United Kingdom, the United States…"

What is the difference between such views and those holding the becoming of a "ultraimperialism" such as the ones we have criticized in Negri? Both views run against Lenin's characterization of the imperialist phase. It is true that in the early twentieth century the international concentration of capital "did not take on the form of an international centralization but rather set the national imperialist monopolies against each other as antagonists in the world market of commodities, raw materials and capital." The formation of monopolies closely linked to their own state that strived for political and military control of wide geographical zones laid the basis for a merciless struggle for the scramble of the world, sometimes through pacific means (tariffs, protectionism, etc), and when the contradictions burst into the open, it took the form of an imperialist war.

Ever since then, the international centralization of capital has grown apace. During the postwar, the expansion of American multinationals constituted the first great wave. The second wave took place in the wake of the onset of the crisis of accumulation of capital in the 70s, one that spread to the American companies and beyond, affecting the two other poles of the imperialist triad: Japan and Germany. If the monopolies were a major feature in Lenin's schema, its importance has increased ten-fold, as shown by the increasing transnationalisation of the imperialist corporations. The frenzy of mergers and acquisitions, on a scale encompassing bigger capitals, is aimed at gaining the share of markets of those concerns or holdings merged.

The growth of these transnational corporations and the sheer size of their exchanges both between each other and within themselves have brought about a bigger integration of the world economy. In other words, such development is the form through which capital tries to overcome the contradiction between the development of the productive forces and the limits imposed by the national state. Nonetheless, as Marx argued with regards to credit, such process has meant "an abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode itself", i.e., it has deepened its contradictions, posing them on a higher level. This has not brought about a withering away of the state, but a shift of its economic functions; it is oriented to an ever-increasing scale to guarantee the reproduction of its own transnational concerns. This is highlighted by the major role played by the state in the signing of commercial treaties, in the regulation of competition between rival concerns in the regions under its control, in implementing measures to boost a growth in the size of its big concerns, in the negotiations in the different multilateral agencies such as the WTO, where the different states strive to protect its groups of interest. All these speak against analyzing the world economy, if we are to understand it, without pondering these two aspects of reality, i.e., the level of the productive forces and the survival of the nation-state as one of the main contradictions of capitalism nowadays. Likewise, the introduction of new technology has but deepened this dichotomy. Thus the chief editor of the Foreign Policy magazine, in an article titled "New Economy, Old Policy" argues that: "This reality faces the companies of the new economy with a disquieting paradox:…the technology companies favour speed, decentralization, individualism, the disregard for geography, frontiers and sovereignty altogether. Multilateralism involves a process of slow decision-taking, obscure aims and a hypersensitivity to any erosion, be it real or symbolic, of national sovereignty." The view of a "stateless" corporation bears no resemblance with reality.

The dialectics of the twentieth century

The twentieth century has been, as Eric Hobsbawn puts it, the "age of extremes". The 1929 crack and the two world wars showed the convulsive and violent nature of the contradictions embedded in the development of capitalism. In turn, the revolutionary epoch ushered in by the Russian Revolution showed the enormous social might and maturity of the proletariat as a subject of change on the world arena. Hence the tendency to unilaterally underline any of these aspects, be it the structural tendencies, be it the tendencies to the class struggle when pondering the actual dynamics of capitalist development. Taking just one of these aspects into account, breaking up the dialectic relationship between them, and endowing it with an unlimited scope prevents one from reaching a scientific understanding of reality.

It is here where the materialistic dialectics shows its superiority. In this sense, Trotsky's concept of "capitalist equilibrium" enables us to deal with the world system as a whole in a dynamic fashion. In this respect he pointed out that "capitalist equilibrium is a complicated phenomenon; the capitalist regime builds up such equilibrium, then it breaks it up, just to rebuild it and break it up once again, widening up, in passing, the limits of its dominion. In the economic sphere, such continuous break-ups and restorations of equilibrium take on the shape of crisis and booms. In the sphere of the relationship between the classes, the break up of equilibrium results in strikes, lock-outs, revolutionary struggle. In the sphere of the relationships between the states, the break up of equilibrium brings about war, or else in a veiled way, a war of tariffs, an economic war or a blockade. Capitalism possesses then a dynamic equilibrium, which is always undergoing a permanent break up."

Such is the method that enables him to postulate that the break out of World War I, itself the manifestation of the contradiction between the development of the productive forces and their constraint by the capitalist relationships of production and the borders of the national state, meant a break up of the basis of capitalist equilibrium and the subsequent opening of a revolutionary epoch. In that epoch the interaction between the subjective and the objective elements reaches new heights, being very difficult to distinguish one another in the works of the economy at times. This is true to such extent that in the wake of the complete undoing of world commerce following the 1929 crack and the onset of the decade-long world economic depression and stagnation, and after the failure of the revolutions in the 30s due to the betrayals of Stalinism and social democracy (and their common responsibility for the ascent of nazism), Trotsky went on to say that "the crisis of mankind is the crisis of its revolutionary leadership". It was the delay of proletarian revolution -not as consequence of the lack of heroism or fighting disposition of the proletariat but as a result of its most subjective factor: the counterrevolutionary nature of its leadership- what accounts for the survival of a decomposing capitalism.
In other words, the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism did not come about because the "opportunist cancer", such as Lenin defined social democracy, was far stronger. Furthermore, Stalinism was to reach unheard-of proportions in the wake of World War II, a time when it became the mainstay of the world status quo, better known as the "Yalta Order".

Thus, the defeat of fascism at the hands of the Soviet Russia gave renewed prestige to Stalinism, which used his regained strength to smash the European revolution and clinch a new deal with the U.S. to build a new world status quo. Thus, the world witnessed a contradictory situation in which the might of the Russian degenerate workers state was used to consolidate the American hegemony, under which the economic boom set in.

The "partial development" of the productive forces in the advanced capitalist countries cannot be explained away unless we take into account the extra economical factors allowing for its emergence: the derailment of the European revolution at the hands of Stalinism (which shifted the revolution away towards the colonial and semicolonial world), the prior destruction of productive forces provoked by the war, the sheer weakening of the US rival imperialist states (which enabled the former to rule unchallenged for decades within the imperialist camp), along with the low wage levels inherited from fascism. It would also have failed to uphold without the qualitatively increased economic and political action of the imperialist states (which introduced all-round social reforms and strengthened the mechanisms for the cooptation of the union bureaucracies out of fear of the revolution), the mechanisms of permanent monetary inflation and the inflation of credit, along with the role played the arms industry as a "replacement market" in the face of the overcapitalization of the monopolies. The very "compromise" of Yalta reflected the contradictory outcome of the war, since it was in exchange for the concessions given to the mass movement (new deformed workers' states in the east and social gains the west), and the cooptation of the union bureaucracy (both of the Stalinist and Social democratic blend) as guarantors of the world order that a new order of imperialist rule was set up.

However, the partial development of the productive forces that took place in the imperialist heartlands during the boom (the growth of labour productivity was more intense in the 50s and the 60s in the main imperialist heartlands than in any other previous period) did not alter the general character of the epoch as one of "crises, wars and revolutions". Thus, with these peculiarities, the new "equilibrium" achieved by and large by the agreements of Yalta and Potsdam did not prevent capitalism from losing a third of the planet in the years 1948/49, what ultimately expressed at the same time the fact that the USSR had survived the war and that capitalism (lacking inner strength) had been forced into a negotiation with the Stalinist leaders of the Soviet Union. With all these peculiarities and limits, a new capitalist equilibrium set in and the US economy finally reach a fresh momentum through the reconstruction of a devastated Europe - although at a much longer time than Trotsky had predicted. On the other hand, and in contrast with the capitalist expansion in the nineteenth century, the proletariat in the second postwar was already existent in the colonial and semicolonial world, which witnessed a number of revolutionary (and counterrevolutionary) upheavals that constantly haunted the relative stability achieved in the imperialist heartlands. Once again, Stalinism played a crucial role in this respect, preventing a break-up of the status quo. The postwar boom, in this context, was far proving capitalism organic strength. It not only needed of two world wars that wreaked havoc, but also a pact sealed with Stalinism that was a mainstay of the new equilibrium achieved.

Capitalism in the last few decades

The backlash of capital in response to the crisis of accumulation of the 70s, a decade in which the basis of the American hegemony were massively eroded, was neither due to a cyclic pattern of capitalist accumulation nor the onset of a fresh phase of capitalist development. The neoliberal onslaught and the so-called globalisation that went hand in hand with it was the peculiar form the American backlash took on. Due to crisis of legitimacy of its world rule fuelled by the failure in Vietnam, it took advantage of the leverage it exerts on the international finance system.

The first element, i.e., the weakness of the American might, or else its lack of legitimacy as the guardian of the world order both at home and abroad provoked a change in the forms of its interventions, in order to diminish their impact on its dominion. The "human rights" policy, the promotion of the NGOs , the substantiation of the so-called right of intervention in judicial and moral rights, and the pursuit of "just wars" were the ethos of the US foreign policy, which from a defensive position in the 70s was turned into a more offensive policy in subsequent years. It reached its climax with the so-called triumph of "democracy and the market" in the wake of the debacle of the so-called socialist countries. In the 90s, this ideology gained new forces with the intervention against Iraq, backed by the UN and supported by a wide coalition, and also in NATO's war in Kosovo, where the imperialist intervention wrapped itself up in "humanitarian" clothes and the "rescue of the oppressed masses" . Nonetheless, this "new model of imperial authority" does not correspond with the new political order if globalisation, such as Negri and Hardt argue, but to the constraints imposed on the US might as a result of the yet open wounds of Vietnam, and the lack of an efficacious legitimating ideology for its interventionist policy, in the way the threat of Stalinist gulag had worked before.

The second fundamental factor was - we insist- the privileged position of the US within the international finance system, one that was to shape the neoliberal onslaught and globalisation altogether.

In this sense, one cannot but recall a poignant interview conceded by Trotsky to the New York Times when the depression in the 30s was raging. When asked: "How do you regard the position of the US in the present world situation?", Trotsky replied that he foresaw an ever tightening grip by American capitalism over European capitalism, and he added that: "However, such inexorable growth in the US world hegemony will eventually nourish deep contradictions both in the economy and the politics of the great American republic. In imposing the dictatorship of the dollar over the world, the American ruling class will introduce the contradictions of the entire world in its own dominion" Nowadays, this remark retains a fundamental methodological value. This is because it has been from the US that all the attempts at reaching a fresh equilibrium have emanated, once the basis allowing for the postwar boom came undone. At the same time, in a complementary and contradictory fashion, the major factors of instability running through the world economy since the 70s have always revolved around it. This has been the case at the level of international relationships. The world currency system codified at Breton Woods was always conditioned and partially implemented, and although at the onset the US abode by the discipline of tying the dollar to the gold standard, when such parity was deemed detrimental for the interests of the US, the Nixon administration just cast it aside unceremoniously. This meant a way out of the constraints imposed on the balance of payments, thus giving it an increased room for manoeuvre in the exchange with other foreign currencies, but at the cost of increasing the fragility of the international currency system.

The same can be said with regards to the world finance system and the American initiative to do away with the state control on capital flows, a condition also codified in Breton Woods, pushing ahead with the deregulation and putting international finance flows in the hands of private financial brokers and the markets, thus turning New York in the main financial centre in the early 80s.

Another instance of this "dictatorship of the dollar" over the entire world was the ratification of the Treaty of World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the past decade, which explicitly states that the US recognition of its jurisdiction is hinged upon the WTO being "fair" towards America's interests.

The 90s witnessed a tightening of such positions as a result of the debacle of the USSR, which left the US with an unchallenged military supremacy. However, it is its privileged position on a financial level that has empowered the US to regain its leading position in the last decade, using it to significantly limit the ability of rival imperialist centres to deal with their internal affairs in an autonomous fashion.

It is here that we are to find the capital difference between the basis of the British hegemony in the nineteenth century and those of the American rule in the twentieth century. Albeit Arrighi in his books paves the way for researching into the new modalities acquired by the development of the American hegemony and its decline compared with its predecessors , the school of the world system and its cyclic pattern is inadequate to grasp this qualitative difference stemming from the imperialist nature of the epoch we live in. While the British hegemony rested upon an extension of its frontiers in the direction of its new territories, its unfolding did not block the emergence of other powers such as the US and Germany directly. The "equilibrium of power", the ethos of British diplomacy vis-à-vis the different European powers, had a rather negative character: it meant reassuring that no other power should dominate the continent. Britain itself did not have the ability, nor the willingness, to rule over Europe on its own. Quite otherwise, the American hegemony rests upon the need of the capitalist states of dominating the economy of all the continents, capital investments, preferential commercial agreements, currency regulations and political control altogether. It is a matter of subordinating not only the less developed world but other industrialized states as well, be them enemies or allies, to the priorities of the accumulation of capital of the hegemonic power. This weighs upon the conditions for the emergence of powers questioning the rule of the old hegemón: not only due to the fact that the scramble of the world has been done already (although the disintegration of the postcapitalist economies has created a new geographical area of dominion and dispute for capital), but, more important still, due to the increased subordination of those centres to the dictates of the accumulation of the ruling nation of the ancient order that holds back and delays the search for more autonomy.

However, the fact that we point to this development does not mean that we foresee the emergence of a "superimperialism" as the most likely event, such as the proponents of the twenty first as another "American century" claim once and again. A man coming from the inner circle of the American establishment, the conservative Henry Kissinger, has provided the most accurate prognosis as to its actual strength: "What is really new in the nascent world order is that, for the first time, the US cannot retreat from the world nor dominate it…When the US entered the world arena they were young and robust, and the necessary might to make the world adopt its view of the international relationships. At the end of Second World War, in 1945, the US were so powerful (at some time, 35% of the world economic output was American), that it seemed that they were poised to shape the world according to their preferences…Three decades later, the US are not in the same position to push ahead with the immediate satisfaction of its desires. Other countries have reached out to the status of big powers."

In turn, it is the very existence of such other big powers that makes of the tendency to "ultraimperialism" an untenable view. Its advocates rely on the bigger integration of the world economy as a result of the accelerated centralization of capital worldwide, a process that has been unfolding ever since the crisis of accumulation of the 70s broke out, one that has been mainly fuelled by American capital. The tendency to an increased interimperialist competition, no matter it takes veiled forms, is today more noticeable than ever before. The increasing merger of capitals on a continental level has fuelled a renewed competition between blocs of power of continental scope, like the imperialist triad (the US and the NAFTA and his attempt to extend it to the FTAA, the EU and his expansion towards Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent, Japan and the Pacific rim). So far, this interimperialist competition has taken a "benign" form, expressing itself has a heightened commercial competence, more mergers and acquisitions seeking to limit concurrence, the increase in direct investment in the imperialist countries themselves, etc. The likelihood that the American economy, which was the most stabilizing and dynamic factor of the world economy in the last decade, might go through a deep downturn, combining with the depression of the Japanese economy, thus ushering in the perspective of a world recession, might all herald a more vitriolic interimperialist competition that should lead to an all-round hike in tariffs which in turn might entangle the networks of world commerce. Both the American think-tank Stratfor and the British magazine The Economist hold that this perspective is likely to materialize. The former claims that: "In the past decade, there was a general consensus in favour of free trade, casting aside the protectionist forces. The reason was less ideological than empirical, the policy of free trade went along with the prosperity…In bad times, however, the relationship between free trade, protectionism and the economic performance becomes more problematic. As long as unemployment grows, the bankruptcies go up and life becomes more difficult, the foreign imports to the American market and the difficulty of exporting to foreign markets fuel by far more resistance. Much more than fuelling intolerance towards interventions abroad, the recessions make the Americans think that other countries are direct threats to the prosperity, and even agents of the economic failure. Things can get sour very rapidly. The powerhouse of international relationships can get dramatically altered when its centre of gravity becomes suspicious and hostile." The Economist claims that: "The GDP of the world has not fallen at any year since 1930. Even during the oil crisis of the 70s, the world GDP grew. A truly global recession would not only be painful, but would bring about immense dangers, encouraging the countries to retreat once again behind protectionist barriers. With luck and some skill, a global slump might be avoided. The policy makers should be ready to stand by the economies, if need be, by lowering interest rates and taxes altogether. They should also make sure that the first recession of the new world economy does not bring about a reversal of globalisation itself."

In this framework, with the phantom of the "old" protectionism haunting the world economy, the postmodernist novelty of an "Empire" that "does not establish any centre of territorial power and does not rely on fixed borders or barriers" sounds at best like a mere exaggeration of some conjuncture tendencies of the world economy, or else worse, a mere phantasmogorical ruse that is unable to predict the dynamic of the system, let alone to provide a scientific basis to fight against it.

Where is the world system going at the onset of the twenty first century?

We are not heading towards the Empire nor to the emergence of a "superimperialism", but to an epoch of heightened crises, wars and revolutions, which under new guises and changing balances of forces cut across the reality of contemporary capitalism.

The last period of the twentieth century, particularly the last decade, witnessed a strengthening of the American supremacy, as opposed to the 70s, a time when its historical decline began. The collapse of Stalinism, along with the victory of the imperialist coalition in the Gulf War boosted the neoliberal onslaught worldwide. The withering away of what Arrighi and Hardt call the "second periphery", along with the imperialist backlash against the semicolonial countries, which integrated these more openly into the world economy (the so-called "emerging markets"), meant a widening of the geographical scope of capital. In turn, the weakening of the rival imperialist nations and of the so-called "Rhineland" and "Nippon" models, and their submission to the US' dynamics of accumulation (financing the American commercial deficit, as shareholders and direct investors, through the process of mergers and acquisitions, etc) is what explains that the reinforcement of the American rule took on the form of a break-through of "globalised" capitalism- hand in hand with the extension to new geographical frontiers.

Those who speak of Empire are just adapting their view to this appearance, working out from such peculiarities and the conjuncture tendencies of imperialist politics in the last period -the last decade in particular- the characteristics of a supposedly new phase of capitalism. They commit the same methodological mistake as the high priest of Marxist revisionism, Eduard Bernstein, although without drawing openly reformist conclusions. The former, when writing at the end of the great 1873-96 depression and the onset of the belle époque of European capitalism, when it went through one of its biggest booms worldwide that brought about improved living and work conditions for some layers of the industrial proletariat (what Lenin's Marxism branded the "labour aristocracy"), saw no reasons why those tendencies might be reversed in a foreseeable future. The 1914 war and the crisis of bourgeois society that broke out at the time settled that debate and were a cruel reminder of how dangerous is to forget the dialectics (i.e., the laws that lay bare motion) when analyzing reality.

Against this methodological mistake and the conclusions that flow from it that many thinkers of contemporary capitalism relapse into nowadays, the 90s did not hallmark the emergence of a global empire nor a "superimperialism", but rather ushered in an interregnum of "unstable US rule" opposed to the period of absolute hegemony that followed the Second World War.

The illusions of the early 90s as to the emergency of a "new world order" that went hand in hand with "globalisation" are coming up against the stumbling block of reality at the end of the same decade. The downfall of the USSR, albeit it has brought about a geographical extension for the rule of capital, has not yet provided a "historical" new lease of life (a new boom) for it, which would mean its complete transformation in semicolonies. Quite otherwise, the smashing up of the old order of rule, which had in the Stalinist bureaucracy one of its mainstays, has not yet been replaced by a reactionary new world order. Moreover, it has ushered in a period of clashes between the classes, the relationships between the states and the economy worldwide, where the contradictions in the formerly called socialist countries are one of the main sources of destabilization.

In the current period, the loss of its Stalinist ally leaves the US more lonely and exposed to deal with the contradictions running deep in the world arena, within a world system split into a imperialist triad (the US, Germany and Japan) of competing powers rivaling the American hegemony, especially in the sphere of the economy, increasingly in the level of politics, and still lagging behind in the military level, where the US remains unchallenged.

If the in the past decade these realities were "hidden", the end of the cycle of American economic growth and its destabilizing consequences for the rest of the economies worldwide, along with the strong tensions running through the system of interstate relationships are making them come to the surface. This is noticeable in the shift under way in the foreign policy of the recently sworn-in Bush administration that is leaving behind any pretence of "universalism" typical of the Clinton administration, and is going for a increasingly "unilateral" policy prioritizing the "defence of national interest", even at the risk of jeopardizing the relationships with the other big powers. Stratfor has taken notice of these shifts, claiming in its latest reports that: "The last few weeks have witnessed the tensions between the US and both Russia and China. This period will be remembered as the end of the post cold war period, and the onset of a new period of the international relationships…The structure of the world system is at stake here. Two big powers want to see a more multipolar world. The only superpower wants, understandably, to uphold the status quo, a unipolar system." The "calm" period of the 90s and the bourgeois optimism that the world, after the "defeat of communism" was heading to and unlimited period of prosperity and less cashes is now behind us. As Stratfor claims: "Washington took this state of affairs as guaranteed, a hallmark of the post cold war period. The economic prosperity of the 90s allowed for this diplomatic carelessness. Russia's and China's natural inclination to resist the US military and political power was countered by theirs interest in maintaining friendly economic relationships". For Stratfor the forthcoming scenario is not simply a "reversal" to the cold war period, as the rhetoric of the new Bush administration might seem to indicate, but to a more intricate scenario of international relationships, and this for two reasons: "First, neither Russia nor China might have domestic political stability so as to pursue their policies in the long term. Secondly, it is not yet clear if other countries will rally to resist the US. Japan will go soon through some dramatic changes, due to its untenable economic situation, while the political evolution of Europe with regards to the US is grimmer every time. In any of these cases, we are not facing a new cold war. This a world that has few precedents, one in which a superpower confronts several big powers trying to control it. The postwar period has passed away and cannot be resuscitated. All that is missing in this new period is a good name."

Although this overview of emerging world situation is heavily biased towards the interstate relationships, as every bourgeois geopolitical analysis, it is useful to get a less "romantic" and "naïve" picture of the world system and the class struggle than that depicted by the authors of Empire, one devoid of contradictions and mediations. In the face of a world heading to increasingly deeper disputes and tensions between the main imperialist powers, between these and the former "communist" countries, between the centre and the semicolonies, with economic crises, saber-rattling and wider gaps between "those at the top" and a potentially heightened class struggle, the logic of the imperialist epoch as one of "crises, wars and revolutions" retains its full validity. This does not mean scholastically ruminating the old categories, but updating them incorporating the following elements that we have explicated in this article, which we now detail in summary. They are: a) the increased integration of the world economy and thus of the class struggle with a more decisive weight of the working class in most of the countries of the world (as shown by the growth of wage-earners in major regions of the periphery, and also the fact that most of the world population lives in the cities) than at the onset of the twentieth century; b) the weakness of the counterrevolutionary misleaderships that, first with the Social democracy and Stalinism then, were a major bulwark to contain the upsurge of the mass movement in the last century; c) the exacerbation of the interimperialist competence, one that starts from a massive unevenness between the old hegemonic power -whose rule relies upon the unprecedented control of the fundamental economic and military levers of worldwide accumulation- and the emerging powers, a factor holding back and delaying the alteration of the status quo of the world; d) the tendency to the formation of a "pool" of imperialist powers, no matter how unstable and utopian such endeavour might be, that in spite of their counter posed national interests have taken decisive steps towards supranational unification (European Union) as way of counteracting the unevenness of the components of interstate system mentioned in the last item; e) the yet indefinite social nature of the process of restoration-semicolonisation of the former degenerate and deformed big workers states, Russia and its sphere of influence and China.

Taking up the classical theory of imperialism in a creative fashion is a key task to appraise the complex and intricate reality of the world today.

Workers' struggles batter Mubarak's government

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-05-18T00:00:00Z

Sunday, April 6, a general strike against the [price] rise in bread,
the increasing cost of living, and in favor of wage raises took place,
called by the textile sector workers, especially the combative Ghazl
al-Mahala factory, and oppositional groups. In several of the
demonstrations, slogans against the reactionary Hosni Mubarak regime
were chanted. According to several international media analysts, the
result of the strike was uneven. In the north of the country the
strike enjoyed more compliance than in the south.

This was owing, not so much to a diminished spirit of struggle, that
the Egyptian workers have maintained for more than a year, but rather
to the terrible repressive measures that the government preventively
deployed to hinder any demonstration of opposition. Militarized
streets, factories occupied by cops, massive arrests of unionists and
oppositionists, and even deaths in the few demonstrations that dared
defy the presence of the forces of order. At press time, the murder by
paramilitary forces of a youth and a nine year old boy who were
participating in a march to repudiate the repressive and
pro-imperialist government of Mubarak, was reported.

The "bread crisis" and an unusual big wave of workers' struggles

The so-called "bread crisis" has its origin in the spectacular price
increase registered by this basic component of the diet of the
majority of the population. In spite of being subsidized by the state,
the price has increased by 50% so far this year. This has caused
scarcity and long lines in front of bakeries, and even battles among
residents to get themselves a piece of bread, which left dozens of
wounded and deaths in a war of poor people against other poor people.
To this can be added the fact that inflation has made the prices of
other vital consumables sky high and has driven rents up, which has
now become a structural problem, where thousands must live in the
streets, for lack of housing.

This strike is the outcome of more than a year of different
experiments in struggle that Egyptian workers have been carrying out.

Without a doubt, the textile workers of the state-owned Ghazl
al-Mahala factory, located in the north of Cairo, the capital, are the
vanguard of this movement (according to the daily Il Manifesto of
April 8, 2008, this is the biggest workers' strike of the last 30
years in the Arab world). These workers have been mobilizing since
December 2006. The workers of this plant managed to wrest certain
concessions from the government, including a wage raise. According to
the Egyptian site arabist.net, the Mahala plant has become a symbol
for workers. The same site reports that in the first six months of
2007, 350 strikes took place. Cement factories, railway workers,
subway drivers, and other textile factories followed the path of the
Mahala textile plant. This is no small matter if one takes into
account the fact that the Mubarak regime has governed with a state of
emergency for four years. ETUF, the only trade union center, is
completely subordinate to the government, and for a strike to be
legal, it has to be supported by the majority of the leadership of
this state-controlled center. Nor is it a small matter that women are
the vanguard of this struggle, since the labor force in the textile
industry is fundamentally female. This question, together with unity
between Muslim Arab workers and workers from the Christian minority,
called Copts, has no immediate precedents (see "La ola de luchas
obreras que sacude Egipto" on www.egiptoantiguo.org). In addition,
the big strike wave during the last months of 2007 spread to part of
the private enterprises. It is also noteworthy that professors and
university students from Cairo joined the general strike of Sunday,
April 6, with directly anti-government slogans like "Down with
Mubarak!" and "Mubarak, thief!," showing a widespread feeling for
struggle for political liberties.

Translation by Yosef Mikah

Histórica derrota eleitoral do Partido Colorado

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-04-30T17:29:05Z

Cenas de alegria puderam ser observadas pelas ruas de Assunção depois de conhecidos os primeiros resultados que davam a vitória na disputa presidencial ao ex-bispo Fernando Lugo. Os festejos têm sua fonte no fato de que depois de 61 anos o Partido Colorado perde uma eleição. No decorrer de seis décadas o coloradismo hegemonizou o Estado e o governo sob distintas formas. Assim, desde 1954 até 1989 com a feroz ditadura do general Stroessner e desde então, o Partido Colorado, governa através de fraude eleitoral e seus representantes no poder não têm feito mais que entregar o país ao imperialismo e jogar na miséria os setores populares.

A derrota dos colorados despertou as expectativas de muitos companheiros, tanto no Paraguai como na Argentina, que vêem em um futuro governo do ex-bispo a via de uma mudança política no país. Ainda que alguns jornalistas apresentem o triunfo de Lugo como o de um progressista, o certo é que seu governo não será um governo dos trabalhadores, nem representará os interesses dos campesinos pobres e dos povos originários.

Fernando Lugo e sua Aliança Patriótica para a Mudança (APM) vêm tratar de recauchutar e, no que for possível, limpar a administração estatal e do regime dos elementos que nos últimos anos fizeram do Estado paraguaio um instrumento nada eficaz para os negócios da burguesia em seu conjunto.

O Estado paraguaio sob a tutela dos colorados já não pode representar os interesses dos agro-exportadores latifundiários, da burocracia partidária incrustada no Estado e das Forças Armadas e do empresariado provedor do Estado. Ao não poder proteger estes interesses é que as diferenças entre estes setores têm sido resolvidas mediante atentados a figuras públicas, seqüestros extorsivos e altos graus de corrupção.

Ao mesmo tempo, Lugo tenta capitalizar e canalizar um profundo e estendido descontentamento social que abarca não somente aos setores populares, mas também a amplos setores da classe média profissional que vêem frustradas suas expectativas de ascensão social.

Para isso, Lugo tem prometido levar adiante um “Grande Pacto Social, Econômico e Nacional”, ou seja, a conciliação entre os setores latifundiários e industriais e de campesinos e trabalhadores para tirar o Paraguai da crise.

Com este pacto - proposto por Lugo - longe estarão os campesinos sem terra, os povos originários e os trabalhadores de satisfazerem suas demandas mais elementares como terra, território e trabalho genuíno para todos.

Lugo e seus aliados

Lugo ganhou prestígio entre os setores populares por cumprir suas funções eclesiásticas no departamento de São Pedro, um dos mais pobres do país. Seu discurso pró reforma agrária consolidou esta simpatia. No âmbito urbano se alçou sobre suas denúncias contra a corrupção e os integrantes do Poder Judiciário como adeptos do regime. Movimentos campesinos e da sociedade civil, assim como três das centrais sindicais, formam parte de sua coalizão. Diante disto, desde o oficialato e sua imprensa, Lugo tem sido demonizado como “esquerdista” e apontado como “amigo de Chávez”.

Porém, o eixo de sua coalizão é um partido burguês pró-imperialista: o Partido Liberal Radical Autêntico (PLRA). O candidato ã vice-presidente de Lugo, Frederico Franco, é um admirador confesso do conservador espanhol José Maria Aznar. O PLRA foi o partido que se opôs a Stroessner, ainda que sempre buscando uma saída negociada com a ditadura. Está integrado por algumas das mais tradicionais famílias da oligarquia latifundiária e nos municípios onde governa tem sido privatizador e profundamente antioperário. O PLRA co-governou com o Partido Colorado depois do atentado ao vice-presidente Argaña em 1999, aplicando uma política neoliberal.

Quando a justiça paraguaia deixou livre Oviedo, Lugo em seu afã de consolidar uma ”frente anticolorado”, o chamou a integrar sua coalizão. O ex-golpista tratando de converter-se em árbitro da política nacional rejeitou o convite.

Na coalizão de Lugo os trabalhadores e setores campesinos não têm nenhum peso, estão subordinados aos politiqueiros profissionais que foram funcionais aos colorados nas últimas décadas.

Seu plano de governo

O Paraguai é um dos países mais pobres do continente e com grande parte de sua renda nacional proveniente do mercado informal.

Apenas conhecido seu triunfo já se tem em vista quem será o ministro da Economia de Lugo. Seu nome é Dionísio Borda. Este economista que se apresenta como “independente” tem sido ministro da Fazendo do atual presidente colorado Duarte Frutos. Borda é adepto da chamada “economia de mercado com equidade social” e propõe para salvar as empresas estatais de telefonia e de abastecimento de água potável um plano de capitalização com investimento estrangeiro (privatização) e demissões de empregados públicos.

Lugo sempre se encarregou de aclarar que sua reforma agrária será dentro dos marcos da atual constituição.
Minutos depois de serem conhecidos os resultados, o diário Ultima Hora disse que Lugo, “Tranqüilizou aos empresários (sojeiros, agricultores) ao indicar que será presidente de todos os paraguaios e que está disposto a conversar com ditos setores para ‘consensuar um país que todos nós merecemos'” (22/04/08)

Como vemos as aspirações de terra de milhares de campesinos e a ilusão de que da mão de Lugo se poderia obter esta demanda está seriamente questionada.

– Por uma política independente dos trabalhadores e explorados

Quase todos os analistas políticos coincidem em que será difícil de Lugo governar com a oposição frontal do Partido Colorado (ganhou 10 das 17 disputas em jogo), e com as expectativas que tem difundido ao redor da reforma agrária, quando seu principal aliado, o PLRA, é um partido de latifundiários. Ao mesmo tempo não se descartará desacordos com Brasil pela re-negociação do Tratado de Itaipu para conseguir um preço mais favorável do abastecimento de energia hidroelétrica paraguaia ao Brasil.

Se não prosperar o “Grande Pacto Social, Econômico e Nacional”, o governo de Lugo seguramente estará desacreditado e não poucas crises caracterizarão a sua gestão.

Estas brechas podem chegar a abrir uma grande oportunidade para que os trabalhadores e pobres do campo comecem a se organizar por suas demandas mais sentidas de forma independente. Em primeiro lugar para romper os pactos que atam e subordinam o Paraguai ao imperialismo norte-americano, como a imunidade para as tropas ianques em solo paraguaio e o fim imediato do pagamento da dívida externa.
Em segundo lugar, preparar a mobilização e ocupação de terras por uma verdadeira reforma agrária que satisfaça aos pequenos campesinos e sem terras. Para atacar os interesses dos latifundiários dos agronecócios e lutar pela estatização destes conglomerados. Nessa mobilização será fundamental preparar a autodefesa campesina frente aos seguros ataques dos latifundiários.

O legitimo sentimento de democracia política depois de décadas de regime colorado poderia ser motor da luta pelo julgamento e castigo dos militares assassinos da ditadura e mentores do Plano Condor. Pela dissolução dos serviços de inteligência e forças para-militares do coloradismo.
Os trabalhadores devem exigir de suas centrais sindicais a ruptura e toda aliança com os partidos patronais e convocar a mobilização para impor trabalho genuíno para todos e um verdadeiro plano de obras públicas que solucione para sempre o problema da moradia e da infra-estrutura para o desenvolvimento do país.

Os aliados dos trabalhadores e campesino paraguaios não são nem a OEA, a Igreja nem Chávez nem os Kirchner. Milhões de exilados econômicos paraguaios através de três gerações formam parte dos batalhões da classe trabalhadora Argentina e brasileira. É aí onde encontrarão apoio e solidariedade para dar ao Paraguai uma saída operária a crise, que somente poderá vir da mão de um governo dos trabalhadores e do povo.

Traduzido por: Felipe Lomonaco

Revolt in Haiti

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-04-24T18:02:00Z

UN blue helmets of Cristina, Lula and Tabaré, out!

Stop the repression against the Haitian people!

Since April 3 massive mobilizations have been taking place in Haiti,
in different points of the country, against the increase in the prices
of basic foods.

Spontaneous mobilizations that had begun in the southern city of Les
Cayes were brutally repressed by the National Police and the blue
helmets, troops of the Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). The Prime Minister's communiqué, that blamed the disturbances on gangs of narcotics traffickers, only inflamed the spirits of poor people and spread the demonstrations through the main cities of the country. Thus, on April 4, in Cayes Gonaives, Jeremie, Petit Goave and Port au Prince, the capital, the population not only rose up against hunger, but also demanded the resignation of President Preval and withdrawal of the UN troops. The "hunger crisis" caused the resignation of the Prime Minister through parliament. From the side of the poor and
working people, the toll is 5 deaths and dozens of wounded, some of
them with extremely grave wounds.

We socialist revolutionaries declare our most energetic repudiation of
the repression by the blue helmets, made up of Latin American troops,
from Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia. The "Uruguay
Battalion" has been singled out by several human rights organizations
as the main leader of this repression. At the same time, together with
all the democratic and anti-imperialist forces of the continent, we
call for solidarity with the struggle of the people of Haiti, who have
been suffering and are the victims of the cruel plunder and oppression
by the IMF, the transnational corporations, the governments, each in
its turn, all of them supported by the UN occupation force.

We denounce the hypocritical speech of Cristina Kirchner, Lula, Tabaré
and Evo, who justify the presence of Latin American troops on Haitian
soil to bring "democracy, development and stability" to our sister
nation. The MINUSTAH troops have brought only repression, sexual abuse
of women and girls in the poorest neighborhoods, and corruption. They
act like a real occupation force serving the interests of the Haitian
big bourgeoisie.

After days of silence and after a big demonstration headed for the
Presidential Palace to demand the resignation of President Preval, he
finally addressed the population in a speech. There he admitted that
the country's situation is: "the result of twenty years of mistaken
policies." The cynicism here has no comparison. As if Preval had
nothing to do with Haitian politics in recent years! René Preval, who
had himself called the "father of the poor" and is the leader of the
center-left movement Lavallas, is the one who administers the alliance
of bankers and transnationals that run assembly plants, and is the one
mainly responsible for the looting of Haiti in the last two years.

At press time, the MINUSTAH troops were imposing terror with their
tanks and weapons in the poorest towns of the land. It is now more
than obvious that Latin American solidarity cannot come from the hand
of Lula, Cristina, Evo or Tabaré. Real solidarity comes through us,
Latin American workers and campesinos mobilizing in support of the
people of Haiti to expel imperialism from the continent and overthrow
puppet governments like that of Preval, and the immediate withdrawal
of UN troops.

Translation by Yosef M.

Histórica derrota electoral del Partido Colorado

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-04-24T13:57:47Z

Escenas de alegría se pudieron observar por las calles de Asunción luego de conocidos los primeros resultados que daban por ganador en la contienda presidencial al ex obispo Fernando Lugo. Incluso en el Obelisco de Buenos Aires cientos de ciudadanos paraguayos agitaban sus banderas a tono con sus compatriotas.

Los festejos tienen su fuente en que después de 61 años el Partido Colorado pierde una elección. A lo largo de seis décadas el coloradismo hegemonizó el Estado y el gobierno bajo distintas formas. Así, desde 1954 hasta 1989 con la feroz dictadura del general Stroessner y desde entonces, el Partido Colorado, gobierna a través del fraude electoral y sus representantes en el poder no han hecho más que entregar el país al imperialismo y hundir en la miseria a los sectores populares.

La derrota de los colorados despertó las expectativas de muchos compañeros, tanto en Paraguay como Argentina, que ven en un futuro gobierno del ex obispo la vía de un cambio político en el país. Aunque algunos periodistas presenten el triunfo de Lugo como el de un progresista, lo cierto es que su gobierno no será un gobierno de los trabajadores, ni representará los intereses de los campesinos pobres y los pueblos originarios.

Fernando Lugo y su Alianza Patriótica para el Cambio (APC) vienen a tratar de recauchutar y, en lo posible, limpiar la administración estatal y del régimen de los elementos que en los últimos años hicieron del Estado paraguayo un instrumento nada eficaz para los negocios de la burguesía en su conjunto.

El Estado paraguayo bajo la tutela de los colorados ya no puede representar los intereses de los agroexportadores latifundistas, la burocracia partidaria enquistada en el Estado y las FF.AA. y el empresariado proveedor del Estado. Al no poder cobijar estos intereses es que las diferencias entre estos sectores se han ido resolviendo mediante magnicidios, secuestros extorsivos y altos grados de corrupción.

Al mismo tiempo, Lugo intenta capitalizar y encauzar un profundo y extendido descontento social que abarca no sólo a los sectores populares, sino también a amplios sectores de clase media profesional que ven frustradas sus expectativas de ascenso social.

Para ello Lugo ha prometido llevar adelante una “Gran Pacto Social, Económico y Nacional”, es decir la conciliación entre los sectores latifundistas e industriales y de campesinos y trabajadores para sacar a Paraguay de la crisis.

Con este pacto -propuesto por Lugo- lejos estarán los campesinos sin tierra, los pueblos originarios y los trabajadores de satisfacer sus demandas más elementales como tierra, territorio y trabajo genuino para todos.

Lugo y sus aliados

Lugo ganó su prestigio entre los sectores populares por cumplir sus funciones eclesiales en el departamento de San Pedro, uno de los más pobres del país. Su discurso pro reforma agraria consolidó esta simpatía. En el ámbito urbano calaron hondo sus denuncias contra la corrupción y los integrantes del Poder Judicial como adictos al régimen. Movimientos campesinos y de la sociedad civil, así como tres de las centrales sindicales, forman parte de su coalición. Ante esto, desde el oficialismo y su prensa, Lugo ha sido demonizado como “izquierdista” y señalado como “amigo de Chávez”.

Sin embargo, el eje de su coalición es un partido burgués proimperialista: el Partido Liberal Radical Autentico (PLRA). El candidato a vicepresidente de Lugo, Federico Franco, es de esta formación y es un admirador confeso del conservador español José María Aznar. El PRLA fue el partido que se opuso a Stroessner, aunque siempre buscando una salida negociada con la dictadura. Está integrado por algunas de las más tradicionales familias de la oligarquía terrateniente y en los municipios donde gobierna ha sido privatizador y profundamente antiobrero. El PLRA cogobernó con el Partido Colorado luego del magnicidio del vicepresidente Argaña en 1999, aplicando una política neoliberal.

Cuando la justicia paraguaya dejó libre a Oviedo, Lugo en su afán de consolidar un “frente anticolorado”, lo llamó a integrar su coalición. El ex golpista tratando de convertirse en árbitro de la política nacional desechó la invitación.

En la coalición de Lugo los trabajadores y sectores campesinos no tienen ningún peso, están subordinados a los politiqueros profesionales que fueron funcionales a los colorados en las últimas décadas.

Su plan de gobierno

Paraguay es uno de los países más pobres del continente y con gran parte de su renta nacional proveniente del mercado informal.

Apenas conocido su triunfo ya se baraja quien será el ministro de Economía de Lugo. Su nombre es Dionisio Borda. Este economista que se presenta como “independiente” ha sido ministro de Hacienda del actual presidente colorado Duarte Frutos. Borda es cultor de la llamada “economía de mercado con equidad social” y propone para sanear las empresas estatales de teléfonos y provisión de agua potable un plan de capitalización con inversión extranjera (privatización) y despidos de empleados públicos.
Lugo siempre se encargó de aclarar que la reforma agraria será dentro de los marcos de la actual Constitución.
Minutos después de conocerse los resultados, el diario Última Hora indicó que Lugo, “Tranquilizó a los empresarios (sojeros, agricultores) al indicar que será presidente de todos los paraguayos y que está dispuesto a conversar con dichos sectores para ‘consensuar un país que todos nos merecemos'” (22/04/08).

Como vemos las aspiraciones de tierra de miles de campesinos y la ilusión de que de la mano de Lugo se podría obtener esta demanda esta seriamente cuestionada.

– Por una política independiente de los trabajadores y explotados

Casi todos los analistas políticos coinciden en que le será difícil gobernar a Lugo con la oposición frontal del Partido Colorado (ganó 10 de las 17 gobernaciones en juego), y las expectativas que ha sembrado alrededor de la reforma agraria, cuando su principal aliado, el PLRA, es un partido de terratenientes. Al mismo tiempo no se descartan fricciones con Brasil por la renegociación del Tratado de Itaipú para conseguir un precio más favorable de la provisión de energía hidroeléctrica paraguaya a Brasil.

De no prosperar el “Gran Pacto Social, Económico y Nacional”, el gobierno de Lugo, seguramente estará tironeado y no pocas crisis caracterizarán a su gestión.
Estas brechas que pueden llegar a abrirse una gran oportunidad para que los trabajadores y pobres del campo se comiencen a organizar por sus demandas más sentidas de forma independiente. En primer lugar para romper los pactos que atan y subordinan a Paraguay al imperialismo norteamericano, como la inmunidad para las tropas yanquis en suelo paraguayo y el cese inmediato del pago de la deuda externa.

En segundo lugar, preparar la movilización y ocupación de tierras por una verdadera reforma agraria que satisfaga a los pequeños campesinos y sin tierra. Para atacar los intereses de los terratenientes de los agronegocios y luchar por la estatización de estos pulpos. En esa movilización será fundamental preparar la autodefensa campesina frente a los seguros ataques de los latifundistas.

El legítimo sentimiento de democracia política luego de décadas de régimen colorado podría ser motor de la lucha por el juicio y castigo a los militares asesinos de la dictadura y mentores del Plan Cóndor. Por la disolución de los servicios de inteligencia y fuerzas paramilitares del coloradismo.

Los trabajadores deben exigirles a sus centrales sindicales la ruptura de toda alianza con los partidos patronales y convocar a la movilización para imponer trabajo genuino para todos y un verdadero plan de obras públicas que solucione para siempre el problema de la vivienda y la infraestructura para el desarrollo del país.
Los aliados de los trabajadores y campesinos paraguayos no son ni la OEA, la Iglesia ni Chávez ni los Kirchner.

Millones de exiliados económicos paraguayos a través de tres generaciones forman parte de los batallones de la clase trabajadora argentina y brasileña. Es ahí donde encontrarán apoyo y solidaridad para darle a Paraguay una salida obrera a la crisis, que sólo podrá venir de la mano de un gobierno de los trabajadores y el pueblo.

Revuelta en Haití

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-04-17T00:00:00Z

¡Fuera los cascos azules de Cristina, Lula y Tabaré! ¡Alto a la represión al pueblo haitiano!

Desde el pasado 3 de abril se vienen produciendo en Haití masivas movilizaciones en distintos puntos del país en contra del aumento de los precios de los alimentos básicos.

Las movilizaciones espontáneas que habían comenzado en la sureña ciudad de Les Cayes fueron reprimidas brutalmente por la Policía Nacional y las tropas de Cascos azules de la Misión para la Estabilización de Haití (MINUSTAH, por su sigla en inglés). El comunicado del Primer Ministro que acusó de los disturbios a pandillas de narcotraficantes, no hizo más que enardecer los ánimos del pueblo pobre y extender las manifestaciones por las principales ciudades del país. Así, el día 4 de abril, en Cayes Gonaives, Jeremie, Petit- Goave y Puerto Príncipe, la capital, la población se levantó no sólo contra el ¡Hambre! sino también exigiendo la renuncia del presidente Preval y el retiro de las tropas de la ONU. La “crisis del hambre” ha provocado la renuncia del Primer Ministro vía el parlamento. Desde el lado del pueblo pobre y trabajador, el saldo es de 5 muertos y decenas de heridos, algunos de ellos de extrema gravedad.

Los socialistas revolucionarios manifestamos nuestro más enérgico repudio a la represión de los cascos azules integrada por tropas latinoamericanas de Argentina, Chile, Brasil, Uruguay y Bolivia. El “Batallón Uruguay” ha sido señalado por distintas organizaciones de DD.HH. como el principal protagonista de esta represión. A la vez, llamamos a solidarizarnos junto a todas las fuerzas que se reclaman democráticas y antiimperialistas del continente con la lucha del pueblo de Haití que viene sufriendo y es víctima del más cruel saqueo y opresión de parte del FMI, las transnacionales, los gobiernos de turno; sostenidos todos ellos por la fuerza de ocupación de la ONU.

Denunciamos el hipócrita discurso de Cristina Kirchner, Lula, Tabaré y Evo que justifican la presencia de tropas latinoamericanas en suelo haitiano para llevar la “democracia, el desarrollo y la estabilidad” a nuestra nación hermana. Las tropas de la MINUSTAH sólo han llevado represión, abuso sexual hacia mujeres y niñas de los barrios más pobres y corrupción. Actúan como una verdadera fuerza de ocupación al servicio de los intereses de la gran burguesía haitiana.

Luego de días de silencio y de que una importante manifestación se dirigiera al Palacio Presidencial a pedir la renuncia del Presidente Preval, éste finalmente se dirigió con un discurso a la población. Allí reconoció que la situación del país es: “producto de veinte años de políticas equivocadas”. El cinismo acá ya no tiene parangón. ¡Como si Preval no hubiera tenido nada que ver con la política haitiana de los últimos años! René Preval, que se hacía llamar el “padre de los pobres” y es dirigente del centroizquierdista movimiento Lavallas, es quien administra la alianza de banqueros, transnacionales maquiladoras y es el principal responsable del saqueo de Haití en los dos últimos años.

Al cierre de esta edición las tropas de la MINUSTAH imponen el terror con sus tanques y armas en las poblaciones más pobres del territorio. Ya queda más que evidente que la solidaridad latinoamericana no puede venir de la mano de los Lula, Cristina, Evo ó Tabaré. La verdadera solidaridad pasa por que los trabajadores y campesinos latinoamericanos nos movilicemos en solidaridad con el pueblo de Haití para expulsar al imperialismo del continente y sacarse de encima a gobiernos títeres como el de Preval y el retiro inmediato de las tropas de la ONU.

Revolta no Haiti!

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-04-17T00:00:00Z

Fora os capacetes azuis de Lula, Cristina Kirchner e Tabaré Vázquez! Abaixo a repressão ao povo haitiano!

Desde o último 03 de abril vêm se produzindo no Haiti massivas mobilizações em distintos pontos do país contra o aumento dos preços dos alimentos básicos.

As mobilizações espontâneas que começaram no sul do país, na cidade de Les Cayes, foram reprimidas brutalmente pela Polícia Nacional e pelas tropas dos capacetes azuis da Missão para a Estabilização do Haiti (MINUSTAH). O comunicado do Primeiro Ministro que acusou quadrilhas de narcotraficantes pelos distúrbios, não fez mais que estimular os ânimos do povo pobre e estender as manifestações pelas principais cidades do país. Assim, no dia 04 de abril, em Cayes Gonaives, Jeremie, Petit-Goave e Porto Príncipe, a capital, a população se levantou não só contra a fome, mas também exigindo a renúncia do presidente Preval e a retirada das tropas da ONU. A “crise da fome” provocou a renúncia do Primeiro Ministro pela via do parlamento. Do lado do povo pobre e trabalhador, o saldo é de 5 mortos e dezenas de feridos, alguns deles em estado grave.

Os socialistas revolucionários manifestamos nosso mais enérgico repúdio ã repressão dos capacetes azuis integrada por tropas latino-americanas do Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguai e Bolívia. Fazemos um chamado ã solidariedade junto a todas as forças que se reivindicam democráticas e antiimperialistas do continente com a luta do povo do Haiti que vem sofrendo e é vítima do mais cruel saque e opressão do FMI, das transnacionais e dos governos de plantão; sustentados todos eles pela força de ocupação da ONU.

Denunciamos o hipócrita discurso de Lula, Cristina Kirchner, Tabaré Vázquez e Evo Morales que justificam a presença das tropas latino-americanas no solo haitiano para levar a “democracia, o desenvolvimento e a estabilidade” ã nossa nação irmã. As tropas da MINUSTAH só têm levado repressão, abuso sexual das mulheres e meninas dos bairros mais pobres e corrupção. Atuam como uma verdadeira força de ocupação a serviço dos interesses da grande burguesia haitiana.

Depois de dias de silêncio e de uma importante manifestação que se dirigiu ao Palácio Presidencial pedindo a renúncia do Presidente Preval, este finalmente se dirigiu com um discurso ã população. Reconheceu que a situação do país é “produto de vinte anos de políticas equivocadas”. O cinismo de Preval não tem comparação. Como se ele não tivesse nada a ver com a política haitiana dos últimos anos! René Preval, que era chamado de “pai dos pobres” e é dirigente do movimento centro esquerdista Lavallas, é quem administra a aliança de banqueiros, transnacionais maquiladoras e é o principal responsável do saque do Haiti nos últimos dois anos.

A conferência de emergência acordada entre o governo brasileiro e a ONU para discutir a situação do Haiti demonstrou a preocupação de Lula com a repercussão dos conflitos porque teme uma “publicidade negativa” para seu governo com as tropas brasileiras aparecendo como repressoras do povo haitiano. De nenhuma maneira abre mão de seu compromisso com a ONU para cumprir exatamente o papel repressor, enquanto tenta cinicamente apresentar a distribuição de alimentos como papel das tropas.

Nesse momento as tropas da MINUSTAH impõem o terror com seus tanques e armas contra as populações mais pobres do território. A verdadeira solidariedade passa por que os trabalhadores e camponeses latino-americanos nos mobilizemos em solidariedade com o povo do Haiti para expulsar o imperialismo do continente, derrubar governos títeres como o de Preval e retirar imediatamente as tropas da ONU.

Lutas operárias golpeiam o governo de Mubarak

Gustavo Dunga — 2008-04-11T16:30:00Z

Sexta-Feira, 11 de abril de 2008

Em 6 de abril de 2008 ocorreu no Egito uma greve geral contra a alta do preço do pão, do custo de vida e pelo aumento de salários convocada pelos trabalhadores do setor têxtil - em especial a combativa fábrica Ghazl AL- Mahala - e grupos opositores. Em várias das manifestações se levantaram consignas contra o regime reacionário de Hosni Mubarak. Segundo vários analistas de jornais internacionais, o resultado da greve foi dispare. Com o norte do país tendo uma maior adesão do que no sul.

Isto aconteceu não tanto por que se tenha diminuído o espírito de luta que há mais de um ano os trabalhadores egípcios sustentam, mas por conta das terríveis medidas repressivas que o governo, em forma preventiva, utilizou para impedir toda manifestação opositora. Ruas militarizadas, fabricas ocupadas pela policia, prisões massivas de sindicalistas e opositores, além dos mortos nas poucas manifestações que ousaram desafiar a presença das forças da ordem. Soube-se de assassinato por parte de forças paramilitares de um jovem e um menino de 9 anos que participavam de uma marcha em repudio ao governo repressor e pró-imperialista de Mubarak.

“Crise do Pão” e uma inusitada onda de greves operárias

A chamada “crise do pão”têm sua origem na espetacular alta do preço que registrou este componente básico da dieta da maioria da população. O preço – mesmo sendo subsidiado pelo estado – aumentou durante o ano em torno de 50%. Produzindo o desabastecimento e longas filas em frente ás padarias a em alguns casos atritos entre os moradores na procura por um pedaço de pão que deixou dezenas e dezenas de mortos e feridos em uma guerra de pobres contra pobres. A isto se pode somar uma inflação que ja jogou para as nuvens o preço de outros produtos vitais e fez disparar os preços dos aluguéis, se tornando em um problema estrutural onde milhares devem morar nas ruas pela falta de um teto.

Esta greve é o desenvolvimento de mais de um ano de diferentes experiências de luta que vem realizando os trabalhadores egípcios.

Sem dúvidas a vanguarda deste movimento são os trabalhadores têxteis da fábrica estatal de Ghazl AL Mahala (segundo o jornal Il Manifesto de 8/4/08 é a greve operária mais importante dos últimos 30 anos no mundo árabe) que vem se mobilizando desde dezembro de 2006 localizada no norte da capital, Cairo. As trabalhadoras e os trabalhadores desta fábrica conseguiram arrancar do governo algumas concessões, entre elas um aumento salarial. Segundo o site egípcio arabist.net, a fábrica de Mahala se tornou um símbolo para os trabalhadores. O mesmo site conta que no primeiro semestre de 2007 realizaram-se 350 greves. As fábricas de cimento, os ferroviários, os metroviários e outras fábricas têxteis seguiram o caminho da fabrica têxtil de Mahala. Isto não é pouca coisa tendo em conta que o regime de Mubarak governa em estado de excessão por mais de 4 anos. A central sindical única ETUF esta totalmente subordinada ao governo e para que uma greve seja legal, deve ser avaliada pela maioria da diretoria da central estatizada. Tampouco é pouca coisa que na vanguarda da luta estejam as mulheres, já que a mão de obra no ramo têxtil é fundamentalmente feminina. Esta questão junto a unidade entre trabalhadores muçulmanos e de origem árabe com os trabalhadores da minoria cristã, chamada copta, não tem precedentes. Além disso, durante os últimos meses de 2007 a onda de greves se estendeu a algumas empresas privadas. É importante destacar também, que ã greve geral do domingo 6/4 se somaram os professores e estudantes universitários do Cairo que agitavam consignas diretamente anti-governamental como Abaixo Mubarak! ou Mubarak ladrão! Mostrando um extenso sentimento de lutar por liberdades políticas.

O regime de Mubarak

O profundo descontentamento social, a onda de greves e contestação por liberdades políticas é uma resposta ao reacionário e pro norte-americano regime de Hosni Mubarak que governa o país desde 1981 com uma série de eleições fraudadas. Egito, país semi-colonial do extremo norte da África, se transformou durante seu regime no segundo maior receptor de ajuda econômica e militar (depois do Estado de Israel) por parte dos EUA.

Pela sua posição geopolítica na região, sua diplomacia é funcional tanto ã política dos EUA como ao do racista Estado de Israel em detrimento do direito de auto-determinação do povo palestino.

Nos últimos anos têm aplicado uma política econômica neoliberal que mergulhou na miséria a grande maioria dos trabalhadores, levando o desemprego aos 20% da população economicamente ativa enquanto um quanto da população ( de um total de 80 milhões de habitantes) vive com dois dólares diários.

Ao mesmo tempo, as prisões estão lotadas de presos políticos entre eles centenas de militantes de esquerda e do grupo islà¢mico Irmãos Muçulmanos que fez um chamado para o boicote das eleições municipais desta semana. No entanto, a Irmandade Muçulmana tem como objetivo político de estabelecer um Estado islà¢mico e se negou a apoiar a greve dos trabalhadores, demonstrando uma vez mais seu profundo desprezo pelo movimento operário e suas lutas e mostrando que representa um setor da burguesia egípcia deslocado dos negócios do Estado. Os revolucionários internacionalistas devem seguir com atenção este processo de jornadas grevistas no Egito em um momento em que Mubarak se prepara para conduzir uma transição transferindo o poder a seu filho.

O desenvolvimento desta jornada de greves operárias – em uma conjutura de fragilidade do governo de Mubarak – seria um ingrediente extremamente importante de instabilidade para o conjunto da região e poderia dar novos contornos a luta do povo palestino que busca sua autodeterminação.

De Nasser a Mubarak

Dois momentos chaves que caracterizam a política do Egito Moderno

Governo do General Nasser: Em 1952 Gamal Abdel Nasser e o Movimento de Oficiais Livres depois de um golpe de estado que derruba uma corrupta monarquia, inauguram a República Árabe do Egito. Nacionalizou o canal de Suez e se enfrentou militarmente com a França e a Inglaterra. Seguiu uma política nacionalista parecida em alguma medida com a de Perón na Argentina. Fez parte do movimento de Países Não Alinhados, ainda que no tabuleiro da “guerra fria” buscava apoiar-se na URSS. No entando, Nasser, apesar de algumas medidas nacionalistas, nunca buscou rsolver os problemas estruturais da grande maioria da população. Esta situação, somada sua derrota frente a Israel na chamada “Guerra dos seis dias” foi um golpe mortal a política do “nacionalismo árabe” impulsionada por Nasser.

Governo de Anwar El Sadat: Quando da morte de Nasser em 1970 seu sucessor foi o vice-presidente Sadat. Este efetuou uma virada política com respeito ao anterior. Rompeu com a União Soviética e se valeu das formações islà¢micas para conter e reprimir a oposição de esquerda e nacionalista para com seu governo que havia adquirido um contorno liberal. Sadat, junto com o presidente americano Carter e o premier de Israel Beguin, firmaram os acordos de Camp David que colocavam o Egito como o primeiro país árabe a reconhecer ao Estado de Israel. Este fato foi o começo da ruptura de uma lua de mel com as formações islà¢micas.

O descontentamento com sua política de ajuste, somada a percepção em amplas camadas da população de que Sadat havia traído o povo palestino, tornou o regime totalmente repressivo com a população e seus antigos aliados muçulmanos. Em 1981 foi assassinado por um grupo islà¢mico opositor a sua política pro Israel e pró norte-americana. Mubarak sucessor de Sadat desde 1981, tem aprofundado a orientação política de seu antecessor. Em Números: 13% é a inflação acumulada em 2008 50% de aumento do Pão em um ano 20 milhões de habitantes vivem com 2 dólares por dia 54 dólares mensais é o salário dos trabalhadores têxteis em luta 389 greves e protestos se realizaram nos 3 primeiros meses de 2008