Irrationalisme

(1) Wolfgang Kort, “Alfred Döblin”, Twayne Publishers 1974; “A comparison with the works of the novelists mentioned above shows at once their difference from Döblin and the specific quality of his ‘Döblinism’. While his story of the novel hardly set doctrinary limits to the form of the novel [he actually defines the completely free form], in his own works he prefers a language of form [Formenspache] which is clearly differentiated from that of the other writers. Like many of his great contemporaries, he polemicizes against psychology, causality and erotic themes, against one-dimensional and linear plots. And he aims – in his unmistakable manner – at totality and complexity. Since the dynamic of the actions on which the individual is imbedded is most important for him, he foregoes reflective excursions and thus renounces the characteristic of the poly-historical novel, as it occurs in Otto Flake, Broch, and Musil. Doblin wanted to be an epic writer in the original sense, rather than a novelist. He simply wanted to tell a story, not to philosophize. The proliferating narrative moods, the formlessness of many of this works, the frequently noted weaknesses of his novels’ endings are only the consequences of an epic attitude which views the novel in the next. Just as he always judged lyric poetry negatively, as the most esoteric of al literary forms, Döblin mistrusted a theory of the novel which, in his opinion, nearly weighed down with ‘culture’ and knowledge, exceeded by far what he took to be the purpose of the epic: the representation of the great basis human motion in the framework of an overpowering and pervasive relationship with life and nature. The consolatory feeling of being included in this natural relationship, a basic cosmic feeling, binds him closely to the many Expressionists whom he otherwise viewed with reserve. It also contains an irrationalism pointing toward mysticism, thus creating an opposition to the intellectuality of ht poly-historical novel which in his eyes, must per force obviate the democratization of art which he desired. Just because he consciously tried to open literature not only the so-called educated bourgeoisie. But to all classes, he must have regretted the absence of a stronger echo. … 

(2) Passim: Thus Döblin stand in the middle of the irrational concept of a free and great personality which achieves its final peak in Nietzsche’s concept of the Superman, and the total dismantling of the personality to  a mere object of anonymous powers, as so frequently happens in the present. The ‘dialectical tension between the two extremisms not eased in Döblin’s work but continuously results in turnabout. To have portrayed this dialectic movement in moving images is Döblin’s great accomplishment.”

——————————–

(3) Georg Lukács und der Revisionismus”, Verlag für Kultur und Politik 1977; “We have already seen how Lucács includes the definition of “irrationalism”. Hi deals with the history of irrationalism without defining it. He passed through the history of irrationalism, without solving such fundamental problems as the identification of the distinction between irrationalistic philosophy and religion, between materialism and rationalism, between ideasm and irrationalism, between belief in the god of religion neht irrational' of irrationalism, etc. Luckács founded elfs s wtheoreitshc, why herdereconcepts meidt. On the question, where he uses the concept of 'irrationalism' only on modern irrationalism and not also on religion and idealistic philosophy in general, you say: 'Whether a general use of the terms would be scientifically necessary, is certainly doubtful. Someday, what modern irrationalism has actually pursued, the false appearance of a uniformly irrational line in the history of philosophy would emerge. On the other hand .. the several other irrationalisms have specific reasons for existence ... that such a unitary terminus very easily erases the specific differences and renders old tendencies of thought, which few have in common with those of the 19th century, in an inadmissible way old-fashioned'.

 

(4) Passim: Let's take a closer look at these moves. First of all, we must determine why this is the case. Lukács, following the common traits of religion [and pre-irrationalist idealistic philosophy], and irrationalism should once again generalize these common traits. This would have brought us much closer to the understanding of the nature of irrationalism and would have meant a deepening of the investigation of the problem. But Lúkacs generally avoids this generalization because he supposedly fears that such a generalization of the "false appearance of a uniform irrationalistic line" would not lead to a false identification of the various tendencies of thought. But how? Is it then no longer possible to define the definition of a concept, to show the different subgenres and nuances within the same concept? Where, according to the definition of the concept of profit, Marx was no longer able to represent the differences between industry, profit, commercial profit, interest, etc.? The opposite is the case: after the concept has been precisely defined, it has actually become possible to further, more precise differences within this genre concept and thus to form new generic concepts.

(5) Passim: With his method Lukács has in fact succeeded – it must be admitted – in avoiding the “fixed appearance” of the identity of religion and irrationalist philosophy. He is theoretically silent at all, that irrationalism comes from religion. The “false appearance” has been replaced by another, already actually false appearance, of the identity of irrationalism with pre-Marxist atheism. In Lukác’s conceptions, modern irrationalism is substantively the successor of progressive bourgeois atheism. As a result of this conception arose an apparent essential identity between atheism and irrationalism and an apparent contradiction between religion and irrationalistic philosophy.”

—————————

(6) Georg Lukács und der Revisionismus”, Verlag für Kultur und Politik 1977; “We have already seen how Lucács includes the definition of the term "irrationalism". He deals with the history of irrationalism without defining it. He went through the history of irrationalism without resolving such fundamental problems as the identity of the distinction between irrationalist philosophy and religion, between materialism and rationalism, between idealism and irrationalism, between the belief in the god of religion and the irrational' of irrationalism, etc. Luckács even founded it theoretically, around which he avoids further concepts. On the question of applying the term "irrationalism" only to modern irrationalism and not to religion and idealistic philosophy in general, he says: "Whether a general application of the terms in the scientific world would be certainly doubtful. On the one hand, what modern irrationalism has actually pursued would be to create the false appearance of a unified irrationalistic line in the history of philosophy. On the other hand, modern irrationalism has such specific raisons d'être ... that such a unitary terminus would very easily erase specific differences and modernize in an impermissible way old tendencies of thought, which have little in common with those of the 19th century."

(7) Passim: Let's take a closer look at these moves. First of all, we must determine why this is the case. Lukács, following the common traits of religion [and pre-irrationalist idealistic philosophy], and irrationalism should once again generalize these common traits. This would have brought us much closer to the understanding of the nature of irrationalism and would have meant a deepening of the investigation of the problem. But Lúkacs generally avoids this generalization because he supposedly fears that such a generalization of the "false appearance of a uniform irrationalistic line" would not lead to a false identification of the various tendencies of thought. But how? Is it then no longer possible to define the definition of a concept, to show the different subgenres and nuances within the same concept? Where, according to the definition of the concept of profit, Marx was no longer able to represent the differences between industry, profit, commercial profit, interest, etc.? The opposite is the case: after the concept has been precisely defined, it has actually become possible to further, more precise differences within this genre concept and thus to form new generic concepts.

(8) Passim:With his method, Lukács actually succeeded – it must be admitted – in avoiding the “false appearance” of the identity of religion and irrationalist philosophy. He is theoretically silent at all, that irrationalism comes from religion. The “false appearance” has been replaced by another, already actually false appearance, of the identity of irrationalism with pre-Marxist atheism. In Lukác’s conceptions, modern irrationalism is substantively the successor of progressive bourgeois atheism. Thus, as a result of this conception, an apparent essential identity arose between atheism and irrationalism and an apparent contradiction between religion and irrationalistic philosophy.”

—————————-

(9) Jürgen Meier, “Amokläufe zu Ic h – Der Kommunismus als Voraussetzung des Individualismus“, Neue Impulse Verlag 2011; “Since irrationalism obscures the rational view of the production and reproduction relationships of people, no automobile manufacturer is in a position to say in advance whether it out off the world market can be sold. The market, this rational-irrational instinct, decides. This conclusion is normally sufficient for the ego of late bourgeois society to use all means to deal with the scientific knowledge of manipulation, marketing and war strategies towards other people. The late bourgeois consciousness of the ego, if it looks at the entirety of the production and reproduction relationships in the world, is shaped by irrationality. His vision is not a generic, but a selective and particular one. In the production department, it is not more about the use of the raw materials that nature supplies us in order to enable mechanic reproductions worldwide on an ever higher level, with more and more, but the battle one’s own advantage over the competitor is the irrational teleological positing of the late bourgeois imperialist subject. The origins of fascism or racism are founded in this irrational position, which in turn set causalities in the wrong way, the irrationality of which is incomprehensible to anyone who has a bit of humanistic awareness. this includes the bestial anti-Semitism in the Hitler fascism, which in Europe obviously builds against foundations, the former EU commissioner Bolkestein advises orthodox, ‘conscious’ Jews to emigrate in Holland. ‘By conscious Jews I mean the Jews who are recognizable as Jews by their outward appearance [!]. There is no longer any future for them here because of the growing anti-Semitism, especially among Moroccan and Turkish youth. and the number of these anti-Semitic youths is constantly increasing ‘. “

———————————

(10) Jürgen Meier, “Amokläufe zu Ic h – Der Kommunismus als Voraussetzung des Individualismus“, Neue Impulse Verlag 2011; “Modern individualism arose from the development of the capitalist production, which created an economic basis on which people could break away from feudal bars in production, trading, thinking, training, education and art. The declarations of the representatives of the new mode of production, which had to assert themselves in a revolutionary way against the innate claims of the nobility, had to fight for the innate claims of the nobility, fought for the freedom and equality of every particular ego the modern individualization of the I. This freedom and equality did not arise from an ideal, but from the capitalistic way of production itself. It could only assert itself, every capital owner free from guilds, nobility and customs barriers could sell his goods on a supra regional market, on the legal one The principle of equality of all producers and consumers was valid. Everyone should be able to receive every commodity at the same price free of legal restrictions. Every farmer should have the right to sell his labor to the capitalist in order not to have to remain the owner of the goods. This principle of equality was also important for the beginning competition of the many individual and often still minor capitalism. The competition should take place under the same conditions. the fashionable individualism that arose in this way, which was certainly constantly banned by the bourgeois egoism and could not really develop into the genre-oriented Individualism, as it might be today, was an important writing on the liberation of the particular self. People who in feudalism based on their origins never study or who could have found a profession of their choice, do so now. /

(11) Passim: This first pamphlet was stopped by the development of the competition between the many small and medium-sized capital owners into a late capital, in which monopoly groups split the market among themselves. The modern individualism of the first lessons of the capitalism, as Leonardo described it splendidly, breaks out into individual rises, who were well versed in various fields of science and technology. Monopoly capitalism, on the other hand, has created a particularism that is not inferior to that of feudalism. In place of free competition, there has been a detailed adjustment of individual capitalists to the monopolistic association or corporation, to which they are allowed to serve as 'suppliers' and who dictate their prices. the monopolies divide up the world market, first at the negotiating table, later on the military field. Whether training, study, school, hospital, research, energy supply, everything is no longer free with content at schools and universities, which they often manage on their own. You decide on research projects as well as on the educational content at schools and universities which you often manage under one roof. You decide on research projects as well as on the natural sources, as where we draw our energy. The philosophy of the 'superman [Nietzsche] is a philosophy he conditionalization of the late bourgeoisie. It has become the main ideology of monopoly capitalism.

(12) Passim,: Modern individualism evolved in monopoly-capitalism into a societal mode of production in which the development of each individual could be realized, transformed into the opposite. The many individual selves, who often refer to themselves as 'average people' because they do not belong to the 'elite' 'supermen', lead themselves under the monopoly rule of the corporations, where 'lobbyists' control themselves with all means of marketing, More and more condemned to powerlessness. The isolation of the particular ego turns into normality and hampers individualization. How the development from modern individualism to particularization of the ego is also expressed in language, is nowadays the common term for the "elite" in the time of the ruling superman. In the time of the French Revolution individuals were named as the ones which themselves [in contrast to the nobility and clergy] had earned their social position themselves. In monopoly-capitalism, the 'elites' of the late-bourgeoisie separate themselves from those who took them to be 'distant from education', the 'prols' or the 'unsavory' [workers and employees]. but it slumbers as a trail of traces in the unity of socialized production and particular appropriation. Monopoly capitalism functions only through the socialization of production. Since this production is kept going again by many particular ego, its development for individualizing objectively is given by the socialization of their work. It only has to be produced subjectively.

(13) Passim: Irrationalism and perfect manipulation by the 'elites' made this objectively easy step a very difficult one. The 'elites' of manipulation do not marry between particularism and individualism. They like to boast about the revolutionary achievements of the bourgeoisie and praise the freedom and equality of all individuals, which capitalism, which it likes to call 'free market economy', can guarantee. They are no longer identical to their own original identity. Where they can, they destroy the achievements of this early bourgeois identity. While the ideology of the emerging bourgeoisie created everywhere new theaters in the 18th century, every theater stage in Europe is fighting for its survival. Alone in Wien from 1781-1788 four famous Theater stages Without a theater stage, which cannot be replaced, but individualization only poorly."

Boeddhisme, Japan

(1) C.I. Gulian, “Mythos und Kultur –Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Denkens“, Suhrkamp 1981; „Een aparte ontwikkeling, die slechts sociologisch verklaarbaar is, nam het boeddhisme in Japan. Oorspronkelijk was het boeddhisme een pessimistische leer van het afzien van de wereld en het handelen, een typische verlossingsleer. Na hen indringen in Japan echter paste zich de mythologie van de god die verlost van het leiden aan volledig tegengestelde doelen aan: de Zen-leer is boeddhisme, aangepast aan de belangen van de Samoerai, de krijgsadel. i.p.v. de meditatie, verinnerlijking en wereldvlucht predikte de Zen-leer de concentratie van alle energie op militaire acties.”

Repressie, Servië

(1)  Div., “Manifest – Krant van de Nieuwe Communistische Partij NCPN” 27 Oktober, Stichting HOC 2022 – Nieuwe communistische partij van Joegoslavië, “”Hoofdkwartier  Servische  communisten opnieuw  aangevallen”;  “The New Communist Party of Yugoslavia informs you that neo-Nazis have staged another attack on our headquarters in Belgrade. They have demolished our windows and written anti-communist and neo-Nazi slogans. Reactionary forces attacked our headquarters five times last year. In recent years this has become the standard. But the last attack on our party was the most violent. / In recent years neo-Nazis have been very active and they are constantly destroying many anti-fascist monuments and other symbols of socialism in our country. The NKPJ is the most active party in our country to defend socialist and anti-fascist symbols. Police and authorities did not want to do anything. Our security forces and police are very familiar with neo-Nazi groups and they have created many. The government that implements demolition policies and reactionary forces are disturbed by our political program. The pressure on our party has increased in recent years. The attack on our party takes place in the context of a huge anti-communist hysteria in Serbia and contradictions in the world. The anti-communist campaign in Serbia goes hand in hand with the offensive against workers' and people's rights and has been going on for many years. Many films, series and 'scientific programs' are made to discredit the socialist construction that existed in our country. It is shown every day. 

(2) Passim: The media portrays communists and revolutionaries as criminals and adventurers, and on the other, they portray collaborators as patriots and “saviors of the nation.” They want to show that the struggle for social justice is absurd, while betrayal is something to admire. At the behest of the EU, Serbia has introduced the Rehabilitation Act and has rehabilitated 3000 collaborators from the Second World War. / Reactionary forces in Serbia wanted to scare the communists in our country with their latest actions against our party. The members of the NKPJ are followers of the partisans, led by the communists, who defeated fascism and the collaborators who served the Nazi occupiers and massacred their own people. Communists are proud of that struggle, because after that famous victory, a more just world was built, aligned with humanity, envisioning a future worth living in, and spreading brotherhood and unity among the nations, rather than a policies of hatred and exploitation. The NKPJ sends a warning to the cowards hiding behind the neo-Nazis: Communists will not back down because of useless threats. Communists are people of a special kind who are not afraid of cowardly neo-Nazi attacks. Communists will fight unconditionally and inexorably to their last breath and drops of blood for a world without exploitation, racism, fascism, chauvinism, interethnic hatred and all other reactionary forms of government.”

Totalitarianisme

(1)  Div., “Manifest – Krant van de Nieuwe Communistische Partij NCPN” 27 Oktober, Stichting HOC 2022 –  Tiao Marighella, “”Totalitarisme’ – Een anticomunistische theorie” ;  “Totalitarianism is used in the universities and schools to attack communism. Under capitalism, it is imperative that the schools and universities serve the ruling class in every situation. Not only are the schools designed to prepare students to meet the needs of the capitalists, but anti-communism is also being spread in an attempt to prevent students from seeing communism as an alternative. / An example of this is history. In the Netherlands, history in secondary education (for vmbo, havo and vwo) is divided into 10 periods. For each period there are a number of “characteristic aspects” where the students are tested on their orientation knowledge during the final exam. History students should know these characteristic aspects well and teachers are obliged to deal with these aspects in schools. Period 9 has characteristic aspect number 38. The students have to study the following for their final exams: “Putting into practice the totalitarian ideologies of communism and fascism/national socialism.’ / Thus, history teachers are expected to be able to explain to students how communism and fascism/national socialism are connected in the context of totalitarianism. And students are expected to be able to apply this theory during the final exam.

(2) Passiim: Totalitarianism: Meaning and Origin of the Term - Totalitarianism is a "trend" in many universities. The old anti-communism gets a new face with which it can be easily spread in different educations. In courses such as history, political science, sociology and philosophy, this theory is often used to indicate social relations. / Before totalitarianism was popularized, the term was used by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer to study Nazism. However, they made no comparison with the Soviet Union and studied a “totalitarian capitalism”. Friedrich Hayek started using the term to describe real socialism. He described it as "the idea of ​​a political party that encompasses all the activities of an individual, from the cradle to the grave.’ / 1. However, there is a name that is by far the most used to give a theoretical interpretation to totalitarianism: Hannah Arendt. In her 1951 book Totalitarianism (known in English as The Origins of Totalitarianism), the current meaning (as far as meaning can be given to this concept) is popularized. / In her book, Arendt tries to formulate a 'category'. That means she tries to find different characteristics that make up a “totalitarian regime”. In Arendt's book it is difficult to find a clear definition of the term. Instead, Arendt gives aspects and characteristics with which she tries to compare Nazism and 'Stalinism'. Arendt mentions the following: a one-party system, led by one person, with an ideology, violent police, presence of concentration camps, monopoly over communication (media) and a centrally planned economy. Variations of Hayek's ideas are also mentioned by Arendt, such as the 'army party' and the 'church party'.

(3) Passim: The structure of the book is different. The book has three parts and in the first two parts of the book Arendt criticizes British imperialism and anti-Semitism in France. Only in the last part of her book does Arendt pay attention to the comparison between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. There is a reason that the book consists of three parts, and that these parts are only loosely connected. The book is written in two different periods. The first two parts (which focus on England and France) were written between 1942 and 1946. The third part was written after the start of the so-called 'Cold War'. This puts the book in the historical context of that period, when the imperialist countries wanted to present themselves as the "non-totalitarian" option for the rest of the world. / In practice, this means that Arendt clearly sided with 'the West'. An example of this is that Hannah Arendt completely ignores the fascist dictatorships of Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain and only pays attention to the Soviet Union when compared to Nazi Germany. Not only that, it is also said that the chances of a new “totalitarian regime” are greatest in countries such as China and India, which were allies of the Soviet Union at the time. Arendt calls these countries “the countries of traditional Oriental despotism’. / 

(4) Passim: According to Arendt, the October Revolution marks the beginning of the 'totalitarian period'. So she ignores the First World War. Also in the period after the October Revolution a number of crimes are ignored by Arendt. The book also does not look at Japan's war crimes during World War II. The torture of prisoners of war, the Nanking Massacre, and the "comfort women" are not mentioned. In the same context, the American concentration camps set up by Roosevelt for Japanese-American citizens are also not seen as "totalitarian.’ / The war in Asia is only mentioned in the book to criticize the so-called "oriental despotism" of China! / 

(5) Passim: In comparing the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany, Arendt looks at vague similarities between the two countries. A comparison is made between two "leaders" (Hitler and Stalin) but no consideration is given to the actual power and function these two "leaders" had. Nor is it considered the concrete material circumstances that ensured that these two persons reached their positions. Arendt then makes the argument that in both the Soviet Union and Germany the individual is pushed aside in the process of forming a "totalitarian" society, that there are no longer individuals but a "mass". An argument that does not take into account the character of the Russian revolution and the capitalist society in Germany, where the workers were oppressed by the German big business which allied itself with the Nazis. / It also looks at the influence of the state on the economy. An absurd comparison is made between the central planning of the Soviet Union and the German economy. According to Arendt, large-scale planning and macroeconomic planning is comparable to a centrally planned economy. These two terms may look similar, however, they are fundamentally different from each other. Central planning means that the productive forces (means of production and labour) are allocated among the different sectors and companies on the basis of central planning, i.e. by the socialist state. This is in contrast to its allocation via the market, i.e. via supply and demand, as happens in the case of commodity production. Macroeconomic policies, on the other hand, are happening in many capitalist countries. This includes fiscal and monetary policy and the nationalization of strategic parts of the economy. However, commodity production still prevails, wage labor still exists, labor power is still a commodity and anarchy prevails in the market. 

(6) Passim: The actual workings of the economy, its relations of production and the mode of production are all ignored. In this way Arendt succeeds in equating a socialist economy with a capitalist one! That in one economy industrial magnates enriched themselves by appropriating all profits while in the other economy planned to improve the conditions of the working class was apparently of no interest to Arendt. It looks at a one-party system but does not consider the material circumstances that led to the one-party system. That the Nazis seized power in the bourgeois Weimar Republic, while the Soviets had to build their state on the ruins of tsarism, after a devastating civil war and famine, is something Arendt ignores. If a comparison is to be made, why not Truman in the United States, who unleashed a war with Korea outside of Congress? / These comparisons are essentially very vague and meaningless. Nevertheless, they are seen by Arendt as the decisive factors that make up a totalitarian state. At the same time, Nazi Germany's eugenic and racial policies are ignored and not compared to the policies of the Soviet Union. This is of course because the Soviet Union ensured the right to self-determination of all kinds of oppressed nationalities who were oppressed by the Tsarism. Also, the October Revolution brought enormous progress for oppressed minorities and women. If Arendt had mentioned these facts in her book, it would immediately become clear to most readers how nonsensical her comparis on is. / 

(7) Passim: As we saw in the first part of this article, totalitarianism is mainly used to attack communism. In many of these cases, this theory is used by people who, according to totalitarianism, are comparable to the communists: the fascists. This shows how dangerous the theory of totalitarianism is. The NSDAP no longer exists. This means that groups that are ideologically very close to the Nazis, but promote a different aesthetic, can distance themselves from the NSDAP by comparing them to the Soviet Union as “totalitarian regimes.” This allows these groups to legitimize themselves as an alternative for the population. An example of this is Voorpost, a fascist organization, which has the following on their website: “Statutory Voorpost fights all totalitarianism and honors with that principled the UN Charter of Human Rights on the self-determination of the peoples. Under totalitarianisms we classify all forms of dictatorship from communism to fascism and from Marxist egalitarianism to exploitative capitalism.’ / In many cases the term is also used by so-called "socialists", who use it to distance themselves from real socialism. By equating "Stalinism" and Nazi fascism, they can present themselves as the only possible option for the working class. What they want to do is weaken the position of the communists so that they can sell their reformist policies to the workers. This is great for the capitalists, because they know that if these opportunists come to power, their position as the ruling class will remain untouched. / 

(8) Passim: The theory of totalitarianism, as popularized by Arendt, is useful only to the bourgeoisie. Totalitarianism as formulated by Arendt is a useless theory for the working class that can never encompass social relations in their entirety. The search for vague and abstract similarities between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union proves the inferiority of this meaningless analysis, because it does not consider class relations. / There are many countries that have similarities with the Nazis because they occupy and rob countries, destroy entire populations, oppress minorities, oppress women, terrorize workers with police brutality and have capitalist monopolies in the media. It is the capitalist countries that do that, not the socialist countries. They do this not because they are 'totalitarian', but because it is the nature of their mode of production, capitalism, that is based on exploitation and oppression. Only by making a materialistic and dialectical analysis of a society, taking into account the class struggle and not vague similarities, can you study and understand concrete social relations.

(9) Passim: The task of the communist movement is to study real socialism and to draw lessons from these experiences. For us communists, it is also a historic task to defend the struggle of all our comrades from anti-communist lies. A “theory” that equates the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is just as useful to society as the bourgeoisie that embraces this “theory” belongs in the trash can of history.”

Repressie, Letland

 (1) Div., “Marxistische Blättter” 4, Neue Impulse Verlag 2022 – Stellungnahme der F.I.R., “In Sorge Uber Angriffe auf Denkmäler der sowjetischen befreier in Europa“; “ At the beginning of May 2022, the Latvian Parliament passed an amendment to the law allowing the monument to the liberators of Riga in the Great Patriotic War to be demolished. The Saeima, the parliament of the Republic of Latvia, suspended article 13 of the agreement on the preservation of historical monuments, which Riga and Moscow had concluded in 1994, and thus created the legal basis for the Riga city administration’s intended demolition of the liberator monument in the capital. Seventy delegates voted in favor, 18 against. / While on the ‘Day of Victory’ many people in Riga went to this monument with flowers and raised the liberators, the city administration had the flowers removed the next day and transported to the landfill. The administration could not express contempt for the liberators and the people of the population more clearly. During protests against this decision, the member of the European Parliament Tatyana Zhdanov was arrested in Riga.”

Geschiedenis, 21e eeuw, Globaal

(1) “Die ukrainische Phase eines driten Weltkrieges? / Interview mit Dimitrios Patelis – Zu Russland transformation, Geschichtspolitiek und Imperialismus“,  Gudrun Havemann & Joachim Hösler, Marxistische Blátter 2022; “ G.H.: In your scholarly work, you researched the essential structural characteristics of the current stage of imperialist globalization, stating that the capitalist world system was in a deep structural crisis. Today you are ready to see a whole wave of military clashes of global dimension underway, including the Ukraine War as a phase in this wave. Would you briefly explain this position before we come to the immediate opponents of the Ukraine war? // D.P.: From my point of view, the essential difference between the current state of imperialism and that analyzed by Lenin in his time, lies in the tendential subordination of people under the rule of transnational monopoly groups at the local, national, regional and national level. In this stadium there are structural changes in the international and regional division of labour, which make it necessary to redefine the framework conditions for the extensive and intensive development of capitalist products. This is accompanied by the tendential subsumption of all capital shapers under the financial capital and credit system, ​​under the financial oligarchy as three function carriers. This concerns the most diverse and highly mediated and complex forms of ownership, it concerns the most diverse levels of fictitious capital with all its possibilities of putting one's stamp on the real products and unproductive processes of reproduction or of gaining control over this or that production area and region of the world. / 

(2) Passim: In connection with digitalization, with the development of communication technology, nanotechnology, biotechnology and technology for cosmos sensing, the technological upheaval of production in the context of the current impeccable development stadium not only affects the mere trade in goods and capital export, as in Lenin's time, but also brings changes in the production and reproduction process: certain technological and organizational bases for the unification of mankind are formed at the level of the production process. However, this process remains stuck in the context of the competitive struggle between transnational monopoly groups and due to the relative subsumption of the global working class under the financial oligarchy. / In this context, certain types of contradictions are increasingly emerging, which are quite obviously insoluble within the framework of this social system in a peaceful manner. This gave rise to occasions for an imperialistic world war, with the help of which capital tries to restructure itself and its products within the given global balance of power, and relying on the respectively achieved level of its technologies, technical and economic advantages in the global struggle for power over education to obtain extra profits, including at the expense of all dependent changers and all smaller-scale forms of capital. ... 

(3) Passim: Although the current third-structure crisis was already looming in the course of the so-called oil crisis in the 1970s, the 'discharge' could be postponed for the time being because the barriers to extensive development that had previously existed could be shifted far: the natural and labor resources of the formerly socialist countries after the collapse of the traditional entrenchments of world capital suddenly huge opportunities for development. They enable him to relive his inner crisis moments or to put them off, ultimately until 2006/2008, when they reappeared openly in the global financial crisis. This third major structural crisis is unique in that it continues to this day, even regardless of the pandemic, which already brought with it many opportunities for hospital destruction, including the associated devaluation of the main productive power of humans: 6 million people died worldwide as a result of the pandemic. In the course of fighting the pandemic, other neoliberal oil manipulation techniques could also be tested. the fact that the crisis could not be surpassed today gives reason to fear that now, in order to discharge the voltages, another open variable rate, a hot, imperialist world war, a third world war, will be forced. / Professor Vazjulin spoke ready before the end of the year of a 'peculiarity to be observed, in history hitherto unprecedented, temporarily noticeable and temporarily calming down third 'hot' world war'. // 

(4) Passim: G.H.: So you don't see the current attack on the Ukraine as the first act of a possible one, but as a further link in a war that has already broken out? // D.P.: The first acts of this war took place immediately after the collapse of early socialism in the Soviet Union in the countries of their Eastern European allies: the Gulf War ended with the destruction of Iraq. Then followed the destruction of Yugoslavia - both processes continue to this day. Even then, specialists and strategists of imperialism, but also down-to-earth Marxists, held the view; What happened during the military destruction of Yugoslavia could serve as a blueprint for how the largest statistic association that was left after the dissolution of the USSR - that is, Russia itself - will be treated in the future. The experience gained in the Yugoslavian war seemed to confirm to western strategists that the 'unjustified' existence of such a large state with such rich natural treasures should not simply be accepted. Zbigniew Brzezinski [like with and after him other important thought leaders of the US geopolitics] considered it reasonable to divide the Russian federation into at least eight states and to join them according to their role to the Euro-Atlantic axis, it was essential for the development of this eighth. Russia with Ukraine is a superpower, without Ukraine it is just a regional power that can be controlled, subordinated and divided. / 

(5) Passim: After Iraq and Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria were also known to be made into staging posts for World War II actions. In Syria, activities of eight to ten states were observed [naturally with very different roles and dimensions of their participation]: was that a civil war of the Syrian people, a local or regional conflict? That would be very naive to accept. How many states were involved when Yugoslavia was destroyed? At least all EU and NATO states and their allies. Analogous conclusions could be drawn with regard to Iraq, the destruction of Libya, Afghanistan or Yemen, where there are already millions of victims and no one talks about it, and where at the head of the coalition, who is currently carrying out a genocide against the Yemeni people, the strategic NATO partner Saudi Arabia itself. / Another version of the dissent proved to be 'regime change' in different countries, through targeted support of different 'color revolutions' or the 'Arabian spring'. Because of many places' cherished hopes and illusions with regard to the revolutionary character of such movements, these counter-revolutionary perceptions ultimately always led to the opposite - namely to the strengthening of the Euro-Atlantic axis. / The traditional hegemonic powers, i.e. North America under the leadership of the USA, the European Union under the leadership of Germany and the Japanese-led Far East center are resorting to ever more violent means of redistributing their spheres of influence, but also redistributing their control options over unauthorized states or other political actors and alliances . 

(6) Passim: Through hybrid influence or direct military interference, they then seek to thwart the unfolding of an alternative development poll on Earth, indeed to prevent any possibility of alternative development at all. They strive to block with all their might the formation of subjects of any alternative variants of economic, political, military, even cultural activities of different countries and peoples. / In my eyes it is not about a war between Russia and Ukraine, not even between Russia and the NATO(, but about a war starting against the hegemonic claim of the old, still strong, but in decline, Euro-Atlantic imperial power bloc, the especially in the last 30 years the world has been able to exhibit its neoliberal order. "In downfall" is not usually meant in the military sense, because there is known to be a gigantic potential that will be exhausted to the last, where the great danger of the current confrontation lies, but in the sense of the loss of his valuable position in the global balance of power, opposite the other, ascending pole." 

-------------------- 

(7) “Die ukrainische Phase eines driten Weltkrieges? / Interview mit Dimitrios Patelis – Zu Russland transformation, Geschichtspolitiek und Imperialismus“,  Gudrun Havemann & Joachim Hösler, Marxistische Blátter 2022; “ G.H.: Where do you see such an alternative counterpoint to the traditional hegemonic powers? // DP The People's Republic of China, which is rising economically at a rapid pace, is developing into its alternative counterpart, around which a group of countries and alliances is gathering, which are increasingly resisting subordination to the hegemony of the Euro-Atlantic axis powers. Russia is right to do so. / Until recently, I too assumed that China was one capitalist country among many. After doing my own research on the economy, politics, social structures and culture of this society, I come to a different school. In the People's Republic of China we see the result of a great early socialist revolution that arose in the context of the revolutionary world process of the 20th century, which existed as a socialist oriented one and was subsequently surpassed by the Soviet Union. china has an extremely contradictory development behind it: the start as a bourgeois and international war-damaged, resilient country with a productivity that was still a long way behind that of tsarist Russia in 1913, led to a kind of 'barracks socialism' leading to the first attempts at industrialization, which initially only with the support of the USSR could succeed and indirectly as well as were set in motion under such great sacrifices. After China had strategically fallen out with the USSR, from the 1970s it sought foreign policy rapprochement with the USA and the Euro-Latin axis, which China also wanted to serve as a counterweight to the USSR and due to the Comecon. 

(8) Passim: Towards the end of the 1970s, rapidly burgeoning free trade zones in the coastal regions made a name for themselves. No limits were ever set to the KP's passion for reform and to the capital's private entrepreneurship. I was horrified at the time - were all the principles now dropped? However, I must acknowledge the success with which the Chinese leadership managed to maneuver through using the trial-and-error method, barring their ship through all the perils, while being very aware of the experiences, successes and failures of the Soviet leadership along the way to study and take into account the perestroika reforms that are known to have led to the restoration of capitalism... / As a result of all this, china in truth is the first great country to overcome its backwardness as a 'third world' colonial heritage, in a historically short time was able to free hundreds of millions of people from poverty and has impressive scientific and technical revolutionary achievements in some areas. // G.H. The local perception of China as a rapidly rising and therefore potentially dangerous global player of world capitalism usually goes hand in hand with the strict rejection of its own authoritarian-totalitarian political system. // D.P. That is not surprising, from my point of view, both misinterpretations cause each other, but of course they correspond to the usual criticism, narrowed to the civic-western horizon, of the same attempt in the history of the 20th century, politically with the dominance of the capital ratio and dependency objectively, as a result of the international balance of power, this attempt can never do without dictatorial, authoritarian elements.. // 

(9) Passim: With regard to China, however, the usual black-and-white painting often completely underestimates the politically differentiated structures of the ‘notwithstanding’ direct and indirect democracy participation in the context of, or also in the exercise of the so 'infamous' leading role of the Chinese Communist Party that is formed and developed at all levels of administration and which require active political involvement by many millions of people. Of course, the other allowing to call themselves 'eight democratic parties and groups' [if they are known at all in the West], the elections to the people's congresses at all levels, the processes of political consultations, the party-related training and further education of a large number of administrative cadres easily disparaged as a fig leaf for authoritarians through a small leadership clique, although it has always been tried against all existing people's democracies. However, I dare to doubt whether this picture corresponds to the real changes and developments of a very lively state that is obviously capable of learning.” 

---------------------- 

(10) “Die ukrainische Phase eines driten Weltkrieges? / Interview mit Dimitrios Patelis – Zu Russland Transformation, Geschichtspolitik und Imperialismus“,  Gudrun Havemann & Joachim Hösler, Marxistische Blátter 2022; “ G.H.: In the nuclear age and in view of the escalating ecological crisis, this is an extremely gloomy prognosis. Aren’t we stuck in a terrible impasse? / D.P.: Of course, the prospects over here are bleak, worse could still lie ahead, solely in ecological terms. now we will also let us in Europe turn on the American fracking gas, with all the consequences that are already overdue – the further destruction of the earth’s groundwater reservoir, the contamination of water and soil, the endangerment of geotectonic structures, quite apart from the absurd high grade of its energy production.  / But I don’t see why we should let ourselves be completely discouraged by that. / History shows that with each new wave of world wars, in which the contradictions of world capitalism erupted, new waves of revolutionary processes also emerged, new revolutionary subjects arose, freed themselves, and were able to change their basis. It is to be expected that the worsening of the situation, the deterioration in the living conditions of the populace in various regions of the world will not be accepted indefinitely, but that their resistance against it must and will be vigilant. There will be nine forms of action and organization worldwide, perhaps even faster and more violently than we previously thought possible. More and more people will inevitably realize, will be directly confronted with the fact that nothing less than the survival of mankind is at stake. More and more people will also appear in our closer environment, among other things, their comfort and low energy and will have to deal more soberly with the conditions in the world. We ourselves can support and encourage the s to the best of our ability and should not bury ourselves in our everyday routines, in the illusion that everything would go on as before. / For people who work on developing Marxist theories, there is plenty beyond that to do.”

———————–

(11) Div., “Manifest 5 16 mei – Krant van de nieuwe Communistische Partij”, Stichting HOC 2023 – Greg Godels, “Karl Kautsky, ‘Ultraimperialisme’ en multipolariteit”; “Russia and many other countries competing with the US are increasingly talking about the need for a "multipolar world". This term is also increasingly appearing among some people who feel left-wing, progressive or anti-imperialist. A multipolar world order, in which US power is limited, could provide peace and security – or so it is often argued. But how real is that? Can imperialism really be 'constrained' by other power relations? The article below discusses this issue, and shows that this theory is actually very old. // Greg Godels - The fashionable term "multipolarity" - popular with a significant portion of the international left - has a historical background. In 1914, Karl Kautsky - then perhaps the world's most prominent Marxist theorist - wrote the essay Ultra-imperialism about the stages of capitalism - past, present and future. Like many contemporary multipolarists who envision stable, peaceful imperialism after taming the US, Kautsky envisioned a beneficent phase of capitalist cooperation and peace after the war, after the warring factions had been exhausted.

(12) Passim: The capitalist countries would find peace on an international level through a process similar to cartels - the formation of monopolies. Kautsky believed that the growth of monopolistic concentration at the corporate level - a process that was underway in the late nineteenth century and recognized by almost everyone - paralleled the concentration of countries, their colonies and spheres of interest at the international level. Just as monopolies reduce competition between firms, Kautsky reasoned, ultra-imperialism would reduce competition and rivalry between state powers. // Ultra-imperialism was written a few months before World War I and published (with revisions) in September 1914, a few months after the start of the war. It was primarily intended to explain qualitative changes in capitalism: from the nineteenth-century phase of "free market" capitalism, led and dominated by Britain, through the imperialist phase or form, which existed at the time of Kautsky's essay, towards the ultra-imperialist phase, which Kautsky expected after the war would have ended. // For today's reader, Ultra-imperialism may contain some unusual, even eccentric, ideas, but they reflect the rapidly changing circumstances faced by Marxists at the turn of the century. Capitalism changed; the labor movement changed; the socialist parties changed; and the leaders of the movement changed.

(13) Passim: Capitalist enterprises grew in size, absorbing smaller competitors and concentrating important industries in fewer units. Capital accumulation had also increased, prompting financiers to look further afield for investment opportunities. And states encouraged the export of capital while committing themselves to protecting those investments by acquiring colonies and developing areas of interest. // These profound qualitative changes did not go unnoticed; in Marxist circles not only Kautsky, but also others - Bukharin, Luxembourg and, of course, Lenin - explored the significance of these changes. Without a doubt, Lenin's contribution - the 1916 book Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism - left the most indelible mark on the left's understanding of imperialism in the next hundred years. // For Kautsky, changes in the form or phase of capitalism resulted from imbalances between industrial and agricultural production. While capitalist industrial production knew no boundaries, exchanges with the agricultural sector were always limited by the slower growth of food production and the availability of raw materials, as well as by the number of buyers of industrial goods. While making a distinction between industrial and agricultural sectors may seem artificial to today's readers, it reflects a difference that is better expressed as the difference between advanced capitalist countries and pre-industrial regions, countries and even continents in the early 1900s. the twentieth century.

(14) Passim: Kautsky outlines a plausible natural history of advanced capitalist countries seeking answers to the "agricultural sector" problem by exporting capital to other countries for trade and markets. Colonization arises because these new markets lack infrastructure and - often - state structures. The capital exporter finds it easier to impose his state than to create a new one: "Of course, this is best provided by the state power of these capitalists themselves...Hence, as the urge for increased capital exports from the industrial states to the agrarian zones of the world is growing, so is the tendency to subject these zones to their state power.” // This is Kautsky's theory of the rise of imperialism. Interestingly, unlike Lenin, Kautsky characterizes this relationship between colonizer and colonized as oppressive rather than exploitative. // Not all countries that develop through the import of capital are locked into a subordinate role by the industrialized countries; Kautsky cites the US and Russia as benefiting from exported capital from other countries, but possessing “the power to protect [their] autonomy… The desire to hinder this [autonomy] is another motive for the capitalist states to destroy the agrarian zones. subjects, directly - as colonies - or indirectly - as spheres of influence…"

(15) Passim: Whereas Lenin sees imperialism as a necessity of mature monopoly capitalism - a stage dictated by the driving mechanism of capitalism - Kautsky sees imperialism as a policy, a choice somehow made by the collective capitalist: "Represents [ imperialism] the latest possible form of world capitalist politics, or is there another one possible?' // Significantly, Lenin's Marxism uses laws of motion to explain the imperialist phase, while Kautsky's Marxism considers imperialism as one of the available weigh. // Furthermore, Kautsky separates the arms race, militarism and war from the logic of capitalism: “But imperialism has another side. The tendency towards occupation and subjugation of the agrarian areas has caused sharp divisions between the industrialized capitalist states, with the result that the arms race … and … the long-predicted world war has now become a reality. Is this side of imperialism also a necessity for the survival of capitalism, a side that can only be overcome with capitalism itself? // There is no economic necessity to continue the arms race after the world war, not even from the point of view of the capitalist class itself, except for at most certain armaments interests [sic]. On the contrary, the capitalist economy is seriously threatened by the antagonisms between its states. Every forward-thinking capitalist today must appeal to his colleagues: capitalists of all countries, unite!'

(16) Passim: Thus, for Kautsky - unlike Lenin - war is not a fixed, foreseeable outcome of imperialism. The call to the capitalists to unite behind peace clearly underlines the difference! // Because the economy of imperialism turns against the capitalist - the return on capital exports has fallen, according to Kautsky - "Imperialism is thus digging its own grave ... the policy of imperialism cannot therefore be continued much longer." // What is to come what now, in view of the pitfalls of perpetuating imperialism? // Kautsky replies: What Marx said about capitalism can also be applied to imperialism: monopoly creates competition and competition creates monopoly. Fierce competition from giant corporations, giant banks and multi-millionaires forced the big financial groups, swallowing up the small ones, to come up with the concept of a cartel. In the same way, the result of the world war between the great imperialist powers can be a federation of the strongest, who renounce their arms race. // From a purely economic point of view, it is therefore not impossible that capitalism is passing through another phase, namely the translation of the cartel formation into foreign policy: a phase of ultra-imperialism, against which we must of course fight as energetically as against imperialism, but whose dangers lie in another direction, not in that of the arms race and the threat to world peace.” // So Kautsky does not see capitalism as the source of war and aggression.

(17) Passim: As the finished manuscript was about to be published in Die Neue Zeit, just months into what threatened to become a world war, Kautsky recognized that readers might find the promise of a post-imperialist lasting peace somewhat questionable . Still, he foresaw "this last solution, unlikely as it may seem at the moment." // How should we judge this remarkable projection? Does the theory of ultra-imperialism make sense? // It is clear that Lenin sharply rejects this theory. He wrote in December 1915 in an introduction to N. Bukharin's Imperialism and World Economy in his characteristic caustic manner: "Thinking theoretically and abstractly one may arrive at Kautsky's conclusion ... that the time is not far off when the capital magnates will unite in one world trust which will replace the rivalries and struggles of the nationally limited financial capital with an internationally unified financial capital...' // Particularly as far as Kautsky is concerned, his open break with Marxism has not led him to reject or forget about politics , nor to skip the numerous and varied political conflicts, convulsions and transformations that particularly characterize the imperialist era; nor become a champion of imperialism; but to dream of a 'peaceful capitalism'. "Peaceful" capitalism has been replaced by an unpeaceful, militant and catastrophic imperialism... If then it is not possible to simply, directly and bluntly dream of a return from imperialism to "peaceful" capitalism, is it not possible to to give the appearance of essentially petty-bourgeois dreams as harmless musings on a "peaceful" ultra-imperialism? If the name of ultra-imperialism is given to an international unification of national (or, more correctly, state-bound) imperialisms that "would be able" to solve the most unpleasant, the most disturbing and distasteful conflicts such as wars, political convulsions, etc., where the petty bourgeoisie so afraid of it, why don't we turn away from the present age of imperialism that has already arrived - the age that is staring us in the face, full of all sorts of conflicts and catastrophes?

(18) Passim: So why don't we turn to innocent dreams of relatively peaceful, relatively conflict-free, relatively non-catastrophic ultra-imperialism? And why not put aside the "demanding" tasks of the imperialism that now reigns in Europe? Why not instead of dreaming that this era may soon be over, that it may be followed by a relatively "peaceful" era of ultra-imperialism that does not require such "sharp tactics"? … // In this tendency to sidestep the imperialism that exists now and to move in dreams to an era of 'ultra-imperialism', which we don't even know if it is realizable, there is not an ounce of Marxism... [ He offers us not Marxism, but a petty-bourgeois and profoundly reactionary tendency to soften contradictions… Kautsky again promises to be only a Marxist in the coming era of ultra-imperialism, which he does not know if it will come! … For tomorrow we have Marxism on credit, Marxism as promise, Marxism deferred. For today we have a petty-bourgeois opportunistic theory - and not just a theory - of mitigating contradictions.' // Lenin was primarily a political polemicist. He was a deep thinker, but most often worked in the heat of political strife, where sarcasm and ridicule struck with the greatest force. // He explains Kautsky's theory in the context of opportunism. Having left their Marxist anchorages, Kautsky's intellectual ship, as well as those of other Social Democratic leaders, were susceptible to the lure of idealized, dreamlike illusions of peaceful capitalism and then peaceful imperialism.

(19) Passim: In the face of these illusions, Lenin emphasized the reality of a growing human catastrophe - World War I - which was only just beginning to reveal the human misery that lay ahead. It was this imperialist war - a war of no other meaning than imperialist rivalry - that shattered Kausky's dream. // More than a hundred years later and with today's knowledge, we can better judge whether Kautsky's "Marxism on credit, Marxism as promise" is valid or must be redeemed. History is always the laboratory for the science of Marxism. // Clearly, Lenin was right and Kautsky was grossly mistaken: the first great war of the twentieth century was not followed by a period of peaceful capitalism or peaceful imperialism. On the contrary, the last century was one of constant wars, imperialist aggression and unprecedented human devastation. This, according to Lenin, could not be otherwise, as long as capitalism continued to generate competition and rivalry. // Movements can and should arise to oppose this trend. Revolutionaries must vigorously oppose these wars and try to gain the widest possible support to slow, thwart and stop these wars, but they must not be under the illusion that capitalism and its tool, imperialism, cannot continue this trend. will express.

(20) Passim: Kautsky's theoretical argument for ultra-imperialism rests on a common mistake in understanding both Marx and monopoly. At the corporate level, Kautsky sees distinct stages in which a competitive industrial sector inexorably turns into a monopolized industry (he admits that Marx also always notes that monopoly always turns into competition - an inconvenient formulation which he conveniently ignores). His theory of imperialism builds on this model: at the level of countries, he argues that imperialist competition (rivalry) always leads to a global monopoly, imperialist combination or cartel. // Therefore, the world economy will usher in an era of stability and peace - ultra-imperialism. // But this is not consistent with Marx's thinking, nor with the dialectic of competition. The basis of Marxist competition theory is found in the earliest published Marxist writing on political economy, Frederich Engels' neglected Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy (1844), which pays close attention to competition and monopoly and spawned the proposition: "Monopoly begets free competition, and the latter in turn begets monopoly." // Even though Engels understands the dialectical relationship between competition and monopoly, he insists on the constancy of competition: "We have seen that in the end everything comes down to competition , as long as private property exists.'

(21) Passim: In one of the clearest explanations of the dialectic of competition, Engels explains this as not necessarily distinct stages, but as a fundamental interplay: "The opposite of competition is monopoly... It is easy to see that this antithesis is also rather hollow... Competition is based on self-interest, and self-interest breeds monopoly. In short, competition turns into monopoly. On the other hand, a monopoly cannot turn the tide of competition - in fact, it breeds competition itself." // Engels emphasizes that competition is fundamental to what Marxists would call the capitalist mode of production - it pervades every aspect of capitalist social and economic life. Even though concentration (monopoly) is an ever-present process, it never supplants or erases competition. Kautsky's mechanical Marxism - like later monopoly theorists such as Sweezy and Baran - fails to understand either the permanence of competition or the process of monopoly or cartels. Competition (rivalry) is the mainspring of capitalism in all its forms and remains so as capitalism develops. // Is current multipolarity the same as Kautsky's ultra-imperialism? // It has become popular, especially on the left, to tout the weakening of US and NATO imperialism as the only goal of the anti-imperialist project. To be sure, a weakened, defused US foreign policy, corporate outreach, and military stance are both an urgent task and a fully justifiable goal for anti-imperialists. But should that be the only goal?

(22) Passim: After the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies, the world may have seemed unipolar. The US, the only superpower to survive the Cold War, exercised near-absolute control over global institutions, maintained military bases in every region, and initially met with little resistance to its plans. As the US meddled in more and more countries' domestic affairs, the description of a "unipolar world" seemed more and more appropriate. // Of course there was resistance. Several countries revolted, especially in the Middle East and Central and South America. Popular movements opted for independent policies in defiance of the US, pushed for national sovereignty and even waged what Lenin called “national wars”—direct or proxy wars of national liberation (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria)—against the US. // In the twenty-first century, the unipolar status of the US was further eroded and resistance to the dictates of the US government increased. The growing economic power of the People's Republic of China, largely unaffected by the global economic turmoil, challenged the US on that front, as did Russia's growing military might and energy competitiveness.

(23) Passim: It is clear that only decades after the US proclaimed itself the world leader, US hegemony was under strain. Influence, power and leadership became more multiform. The world became largely multipolar. And insofar as this new order limits the US's range of action, that's a good thing. // But multipolarity as reality is different from multipolarity as doctrine. Welcoming multipolarity because it constrains the US is one thing; welcoming multipolarity as ushering in a new era of peaceful coexistence and harmony in the world is something else - something much more misleading and dangerous. // Like Kautsky, some on the left are concluding that capitalism can be decoupled from competition or rivalry if only the US is contained. As Lenin noted, this point of view is more wishful thinking than a reflection of reality. // For doctrinal multipolarists, a centuries-long history of imperialist rivalries between great powers, only partially disrupted by a united anti-Soviet, anti-communist crusade, is hardly evidence that capitalism invariably fuels imperialist rivalries. They choose to overlook this pattern. // Less than two decades after the end of the Great Imperialist War, Japan, Italy and Germany had begun seeking imperialist expansion, often at the expense of the empires of other great powers such as the United Kingdom and France.

(24) Passim: In the middle of the century, the confrontation of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation tempered the danger of world war, but imperialist wars, both national liberation and anti-insurgency wars, raged. In many cases, economic aggression replaced military aggression as former colonial masters attempted to establish neo-colonial relations. // Despite this backdrop of ongoing, endless imperialist competition and conflict, multipolarists envision a coming era of multilateral cooperation and mutual respect. // They imagine that India and Pakistan will form an unprecedented harmony; that Japanese claims to the Kuril Islands will disappear; that the rivalry in the Balkans and the conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be magically resolved; that the long-standing and ever-dormant rivalries in the Middle East will disappear; and that the struggle for control of the vast wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo will subside and be settled peacefully once US imperialism is curtailed. // They see no ominous signs in Germany's and Japan's growing belligerence and vastly expanded military budgets. They hail global rearrangements and new alliances as steps toward peace rather than as potential sources of conflict.

(25) Passim: The war in Ukraine has unleashed a far greater threat of local, regional and even global war than we have seen in fifty years. As noted by Ian Buruma (in the March 24, 2023 Wall Street Journal), the war has enabled Germany to increase its war budget by €100 million, while breaking the post-war shackles of this former instigator of the last world war, a moment that Chancellor Scholz calls a “historic turning point”. // Buruma cites a commitment by Japanese Prime Minister Kishida to increase military spending by 50% in 5 years, a dangerous break with Japan's constitutional constraints. Is this an omen of future utopian multipolarity? // Like Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism, this theory of a peaceful and harmonious world of capitalist powers is a radical departure from what history teaches and from contemporary reality. And like Kautsky, its proponents have lost touch with the dynamics of capitalism in the age of imperialism. Kautsky saw the fundamental contradiction of his time between competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism, with the "carteling" of empires eliminating global rivalries.

(26) Passim: Today's multipolarists see the struggle between unipolarity and multipolarity as the most important contradiction in the world. Like ultra-imperialism, this is an illusion that allows them to sidestep the great contradiction of our time: the struggle between an overripe, failed system - capitalism - and socialism. // Since the demise of Soviet socialism, advocating socialism has gone out of fashion. For most leftists, socialism is at best a distant dream, far beyond our reach. No doubt this desperation – unparalleled even in the most desperate times of the past – is the reason for the appeal of multipolarity, something that seems within reach. // But intellectual integrity requires us to go where the truth takes us. And the truth in our time - like the truth in Kautsky's time - demands that we recognize that capitalism causes war. The ultimate solution to war is socialism.” Source: ZZ's blog, April 7, 2023

——————————

(27) Srecko Horvat, “Nach dem Ende der Geschichte – Vom Arabischen Frühling zur Occupy-Bewegung“, Laika 2013; Mischael Hardt, “Eine neue Aneignung des Gemeinschaftlichen“ - I think that at this level (the future) we can say that neoliberalism is dead. And not just it, but American unilaterism as well. To say that both of them are dead - and that American unilateriusm was dead ten years ago - doesn't mean they can't do horrible things, you kind of have an afterlife. But just as american imperialism is dead, so is neoliberalism dead, in the sense that there is no creative future. Basically, we live in a time of interfere, in a transition, in which of course many neoliberal practices will be present, but they will end differently. I think that the proposed solutions to the current crisis, either private control or public control, fall short. What one should find is an alternative to these two options. What actually meant the institutions of 'communal'? This crisis is forcing It enables us - or rather enables us - to think about how a different approach to society could look good. The iron critics, also the best critics of neoliberalism, start from the unsuspected assumptions that the alternatives are Keynesian sum or static control "We should overcome this binary". I would not be the enough person to deliver programs for the collective management of the common goods, but it seems to me that this is an extremely important problem of our times. "