Globalisation: Uneven and Combined Capitalist Development

Is the tendency to conflict decreasing?

Capitalism’s law of uneven and combined development accelerates the globalisation of capital and formation of large economic unions, while at the same time producing even greater inequality and fierce competition. It is clear that the tendency towards unity, which is rooted in economic base, is doomed to be in conflict with the tendency towards competition, which is also rooted in the same source. As a matter of fact, today’s developments find their expression in the efforts of the great capitalist powers to expand their economic dominance, in their ambition to secure a superior position in the spheres of influence of rival powers and to create new spheres of influence. Imperialism has never brought a period of peace to the world, nor will it ever do so. The aggressive face of global capitalism is revealed in historical episodes when the given balances in the world are upset and serious crises of hegemony are experienced. Capitalism cannot move forward without resorting to imperialist wars of various types in order to redivide spheres of influence in the world, prevent the rise of rival powers or weaken their power.

However, globalisation under capitalism has been promoted by some bourgeois ideologues and some renegade socialists who are dragged in their wake as a new era of capitalism, an era of peace in which wars will end. Let it not be forgotten that some so-called Marxist thinkers once interpreted capitalism’s leap from colonialism to imperialism as the rise to a peaceful capitalist phase that would close the era of forcible expansionism. Kautsky, once the “pope” of Marxism, caused a lot of confusion with this theory of ultra-imperialism.

What is remarkable about such theories is that they paint a picture of a peaceful world at a historical juncture when the world is being ravaged by the imperialist powers and the capitalist system is being dragged from crisis to crisis. Indeed, Lenin underlined this extremely important point when criticizing Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism. In theory, it is quite possible to envision a capitalism that would ensure the complete economic integration of all countries in the world and eliminate the possibility of conflicts arising from national divisions. In practice, however, it is inevitable that this integration tendency will provoke new and gigantic conflicts. The political and social reality that will emerge from this, then, cannot be anything other than a world pregnant with imperialist wars and the possibility of revolution.

Time proved the correctness of Lenin’s approach. The inconsistency and, more importantly, the pro-capitalist character of views like “ultra-imperialism” put forward in the name of Marxism were proved by the events of that period. However, at historical turning points when capitalism again plunged the world into major crises and wars, such views were always reheated and put on the agenda. For example, the bubble of globalism inflated by the bourgeoisie in the period following the fall of the Berlin Wall would again lead some to the hoax of a peaceful capitalism. However, just like in the past, this time the hoax did not last long. The much-advertised global system was turning the world into a fire with unjust wars starting from the Balkans and extending to Africa, the Middle East and Asia!

As it is known, the reason for the wars waged by the armies of expansionist countries in the past was to conquer new territories and countries and annex them to their empires. However, with the advance of capitalism, the empires of the past, based on territorial annexations, have been replaced by great imperialist powers that have annexed economically even politically independent countries into their sphere of influence. The nature of wars has changed over time, but the unjust wars in which the ruling classes pit various peoples against each other for their own interests have not disappeared. Today’s developments have once again proved that the imperialist powers can bathe the world in blood in order to carve up spheres of influence. Moreover, today’s imperialist wars have taken on a much more complex character in terms of the field of war, the techniques and means of warfare, as seen most strikingly in the case of the hegemonic power of the system, the USA.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the imperialist powers were in direct confrontation with each other in order to redivide some colonial territories and expand their spheres of influence. Today, the conflicts between rival imperialist powers are characterized by wars for hegemony in areas subject to redivision. Today the imperialist powers have no intention of completely wiping out the nation-states in the regions where they wage war and annexing their territories to turn them into their colonies. Of course, due to conflicts of interest between different powers, it is quite possible that some nation-states will be dismembered and new ones will be formed. But the main goal is the creation of controlled political structures. The US calls this “bringing democracy and civilization”. The primary aim of American imperialism is to re-establish the hegemony it had achieved in the past under the changed conditions. Relying on its military superiority, the US is trying to reduce other countries to a part of its war games. It plans to contain rising powers such as Russia and China[1] at the very beginning of their rise and thus not to lose hegemony to anyone else.

Redivision of the old and new spheres of influence by various imperialist powers, and big financial capital groups and monopolies, which play on an international scale, will fuel the rivalry between these powers and will bring up new imperialist wars. Attempting to solve problems that cannot be solved in the realm of diplomacy with weapons is a constant feature of imperialist capitalism. Bourgeois writers like to talk about the problems concerning the fate of humanity in a globalizing world with the refrain “we are all in the same boat”. It is entirely true that capitalism, which is much more globalized than in the past, has brought the destinies of all countries of the world into a close relationship with each other. However, some have much more say and power in determining this fate than others. In short, it is clear that this boat is characterized by highly unequal relations and that the hegemonic power in the wheelhouse is not steering the boat in a favourable direction.

Nor should one look at current developments and draw the wrong conclusion that global capitalism will turn the conflicts of interest between different power centres into a permanent state of war. In fact, the tension between rival imperialist powers will never disappear. But the ways in which this tension manifests itself (hot war, cold war, diplomatic confrontation or relative peace) and its consequences change from period to period. It must be remembered that capitalism is not a system of production relying on conquest, surviving by starting wars ex nihilo and seizing new spoils of war. The rise of militarism with imperialism, increasing military expenditures and the profits made by war barons in times of hot wars are of course the realities of global capitalism. But the ordinary workings of the capitalist system cannot be reduced to these aspects alone.

Generally, in ordinary times, capitalist business needs political stability and relative peace to sustain its profitable pattern of investment in a wide variety of fields. The so-called ordinary periods are those in which the capitalist system does not experience a fundamental crisis of hegemony. Whether the hierarchical structure of the capitalist system works fine depends on the stability and strong position of the hegemon country. Therefore, as long as a new crisis of hegemony does not brew, the capitalist system can move forward on the basis of the “compromise” achieved as a result of the division of spoils in the previous period. These periods of “compromise” may well bring up new conflicts and hot wars in some regions where problems have not yet been resolved (or new problems have emerged). Nevertheless, for a significant part of the world, these are periods of relative “peace” compared to the period of widespread wars.

As a matter of fact, some regional wars continued to exist during the “peace” period after the second imperialist war of division. The war in Vietnam can be recalled as a prime example. The supremacy of French imperialism, which had previously held a dominant position in Vietnam, came to an end in 1954 and was replaced by the interventions of American imperialism. The success of the Vietnamese national liberation struggle from the 60s to 1973, when the war ended, dealt a blow to the interests of US imperialism in this region. And America, which for a long time managed to present itself as the champion of democracy, lost prestige on a world scale. But such situations are still different from periods of general unbalance and instability, when the balance in the world is so clearly and completely shaken that a new crisis of hegemony is well and truly broken out.

When the conflicts between the imperialist powers move from the diplomatic table to the battlefield, it is clear that military superiority becomes of utmost importance. The recent imperialist war offensive launched by the US, relying on its enormous military might, proves this fact once again. In fact, American imperialism had been preparing for the realization of a long-term war strategy in Eurasia for a long time, and taking the September 11 attack as an opportunity to do so, it invaded Iraq. Caught unprepared for this war and unable to match the US militarily, some of the bourgeois powers of Europe initially tried to buy time with a completely hypocritical anti-war and, above all, anti-Bush stance. The card played by France and Germany was to try to sell the European Union as a project of democracy and peace in the face of the warlike US. Even if there are differences in the political themes that characterize the US and the EU today, it must never be forgotten that the EU is ultimately an imperialist union. This union, which pretends to be pro-peace when it suits it, can join the imperialist war front with greater force when conditions change. As we saw in the run-up to the last US elections, one can never trust the “anti-war” fronts led by the European imperialists or by capitalist barons like Soros who oppose Bush.

Only if the working class mobilizes on the basis of its own organized power and independent politics and mobilize the masses, can a meaningful front of struggle against imperialist wars be formed. World history proves this truth. As a matter of fact, the accuracy of this historical lesson has been tested once again with the recent developments. Opposition to war in the tail of the bourgeois opposition is doomed to retreat at any moment, just as it has risen.

The struggle for hegemony

It is known that in the history of capitalism, even before the imperialist stage, there have been countries that have made a leap forward and countries that have regressed. For example, in the early stages of capitalism, countries like Italy and the Netherlands rose to prominence on the basis of large overseas trade. Then Britain, which had a huge colonial empire and made a breakthrough in industrial capitalism, came to the fore and emerged as the hegemonic power of the world. But in the course of the 20th century, America would make a tremendous breakthrough on the basis of imperialist set-up and Britain would lose its former supremacy. Alongside the rise of America, Germany and Japan also made gigantic leaps and bounds during the period of imperialism.

The first half of the 20th century saw the rise of imperialism. Capitalism, advancing by eliminating old relations of production and dissolving closed and local economies, began to build the network of a global economic system. From then on, capitalist progress was embodied in the rise to prominence of imperialist countries that had the capacity to run the business on a global scale. Although the economic relations that spread across the globe increasingly linked the fate of various capitalist countries, economic integration did not at all mean the establishment of fraternal relations between them. The capitalist system was structured in the form of a hierarchical pyramid, with the hegemonic power at the top and laden with contradictions.

The history of the struggle for hegemony between capitalist countries that have gained power in imperialist system also goes back to the past. In the 20th century, the struggle for hegemony twice ravaged the world with the fire of a great war of division. The process following the First World War, following a brief period of armistice, resulted in a sharpening of the contradictions of the capitalist system and a new clash of powers claiming hegemony. In fact, the First World War was not enough to determine the hegemonic power of the capitalist system that had risen to the imperialist stage. Therefore, the cards were re-distributed in a second world war and Hitler’s Germany, which had bloodied the world with its claim to hegemony, got a harsh defeat. When American imperialism imposed its hegemony on the other capitalist powers, a period of great turbulent struggle came to an end. Thus, the capitalist system entered the long post-war period of economic ascendancy led by the US.

The conditions that allowed for a relatively steady pace of capital accumulation during this period made possible the growth of the world market and positively affected the realization of surplus-value. At the same time, the living standards of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries rose. All the while, the intervention of the imperialist powers in their spheres of influence and the unjust wars fought on this basis continued to exist. But the period of great wars covering the territory of the developed capitalist countries seemed to be over. For a certain historical period, the Cold War period dominated the world on the basis of the balance of power established between the USA and the Soviet Union. During this period, which was shaped under the influence of the two superpowers, the world was divided into the “socialist” bloc on the one hand and the capitalist bloc on the other. For a long time, the world thus witnessed a constant tension between the two systems. For the capitalist powers, the undisputed hegemon of this period was the United States. This situation continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union upset the world balance and the outbreak of wars for hegemony provoked by the need for a new balance.

The history of class societies has always been accompanied by wars between rival powers. Periods of relative peace between great wars have been marked by the sovereignty of the kingdoms or empires that asserted their power through these wars. Our world once experienced a period of pax Romana (Roman peace) when the Roman Empire, which had risen on a slave mode of production, imposed its power on other countries as a result of many bloody wars and successful conquests. Many years later, there was a period of pax Britannica, this time based on colonial capitalism and dominated by Britain. After the Second World War, for the capitalist world, the period of pax Americana was characterized by the hegemonic American imperialism. However, the collapse of the USSR and similar regimes put an end to the capitalist alliance around the US against the “common enemy”.

Now the conditions had changed and new areas of division had opened up for the imperialist powers. The imperialist war that tore Yugoslavia apart had made it clear that the European imperialist powers wanted to have some say over the new spheres of influence. Germany and France, at the head of the EU were signalling to the US hegemony in the course of international crises that broke out one after another that it had lost its old meaning. In the face of this situation, the US was going to take the offensive, needing to reassert its hegemonic position in the changing world conditions, and with more violent methods. The rise of huge countries such as Russia and China on the capitalist path was also diversifying the power composition of the world capitalist system. This brought about enormous changes in the hierarchical order and thus a deepening of the system’s crisis of hegemony.

A hierarchical system without a hegemon is unthinkable. The displacement of hegemon power is an extremely complex and extraordinary event that shakes all the existing balances to the core. Such shifts cannot be explained by periodic economic crises that occur within the ordinary operation of the system. The conditions that drive the system into a new crisis of hegemony manifest themselves in major upheavals and a period of chaos. While such periods of history offer revolutionary opportunities for the world working class to break free from this system, for the bourgeoisie they necessitate establishment of a new equilibrium. A system that fails to reach equilibrium over a long period of time cannot survive, it falls apart in unending conflicts.

A new equilibrium within the operation of the world capitalist system can be established under the leadership of an imperialist country that proves its superiority on the basis of economic, political and military power relations. Among the factors listed, it is undoubtedly the level of economic power that is decisive in the final analysis, and this in essence determines who will be the hegemonic power of the system. The criterion of economic power here cannot be relative criteria such as national income per capita. Because from this point of view, for example, it is quite possible for a small and rich European country to be at the forefront. As a matter of fact, according to 2004 data, Luxembourg ranks first in per capita national income with 69,929 dollars, while the USA ranks seventh with 39,934 dollars. However, what is decisive is the absolute superiority that influences the course of events on a global scale. As in the case of the United States, hegemony can be gifted to the country or group of countries that owns a large capitalist territory and holds the largest absolute share in the world economy.[2]

The American hegemony, which marked the era from the end of the Second World War to the present day, derived its power from its absolute superiority. Because of its single unified nation-state structure, it was based on a solid and coherent political-legal source of power, completely different from, for example, the European Union model. But everything wears out over time and loses its former strength. After the economic factors that gave US imperialism its undisputed supremacy brought it to the top, a relative decline began. This capitalist giant, which drove other countries into debt at high interest rates, is now struggling with a deep debt burden in its own bed. The roar of the US on the world stage is accompanied by problems triggered by budget deficits and the current account deficit. The depth of the crisis that the hegemonic power of the system has fallen into is a picture of how fragile the entire system has become.

Many years ago Trotsky pointed out that in a period of crisis the hegemony of the United States would operate more openly and more ruthlessly than in a period of ascendancy. He pointed to important developments. For example, the international power of the United States and its resulting irresistible expansion were transforming North American capitalism into the primary counter-revolutionary force of the modern era. The United States would seek to overcome its own ills at the expense of Europe, whether through peace or war. Thus, the general line of American policy, especially during its economic troubles and crisis, would lead to profound upheavals in Europe as in the rest of the world. Trotsky thus predicted that there would be no shortage of revolutionary situations in the future and that the interrelations between Europe and America would trigger many revolutionary upheavals. “A major crisis in the United States would sound the alarm bells for new wars and revolutions”[3] These and similarly important observations need to be recalled again and again in today’s conditions.

Today, the US’s efforts to reassert itself as the undisputed hegemonic power in the face of the changing balance of power in the world are driven in the first place by its own interests. However, this also has a dimension that concerns the survival of the capitalist system. For it is clear that if the operation of the system is jeopardized, the interests of American imperialism alone will no longer matter. When rival imperialist powers see that protracted wars for hegemony make world capitalism vulnerable to the working class, they are forced to reconsider their calculations. As a matter of fact, the current vacillating and compromising attitude of the European countries, which initially opposed the US with the Greater Middle East project, is related to this reality.

An era of protracted crisis

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the like, the capitalist system entered a new era in which the unknowns of a complex equation changed completely. Capitalism, which had become the sole dominant system in the world, was intoxicated by the temporary moral euphoria of this new situation when it suddenly found itself on the brink of a frightening abyss of instability and unbalance. Capitalism entered the new millennium of human history with a shocking system crisis, the depth, severity and consequences of which could not be predicted in advance. This crisis is far beyond the periodic crises of imperialist capitalism. It is a structural crisis on a scale that deepens and almost perpetuates the stagnation tendency known to accompany monopoly relations.

Thus, the period we are passing through is characterised as a historical episode in which the great powers are driven into a fierce competition in order to share their trump cards once again. In some respects, this episode is reminiscent of the conjuncture of the First World War. But in fact, there is an even deeper system crisis than that period. At the same time, this situation is embodied as a crisis of hegemony. For the time being, it seems extremely difficult for the USA to completely lose its hegemonic position and for a new hegemonic power to impose itself. This feature gives an idea about the protracted character of the current system crisis.

The bourgeoisie of the leading European countries, such as Germany and France, had long since realised the impossibility of single-handedly resisting the competition of a united community of states with enormous territories. That is why, as early as the beginning of the 20th century, they had developed the utopia of a United States of Europe. Although the idea of transforming capitalist Europe, organised in the form of separate nation-states, into a united community of states like the USA was ultimately a dream, the idea of a united Europe did bear fruit at the level of forming an economic community. First the EEC and then an enlarged EU with new accessions. Had it not been for the developments that upset the old world balance at the close of the 20th century, there might have been no reason for the unusual escalation of tensions between the EU and the USA. However, with the collapse of the ‘socialist’ bloc, an objective environment has emerged in which old calculations have become obsolete and new strategies have become necessary.

This change, which at first glance seemed to be entirely in favour of the capitalist system, would soon begin to reveal its weaknesses. As soon as it became clear that the capitalist system had closed the period of relatively smooth rise after the Second World War, the tension between the US and the EU began to escalate. Despite the struggle for hegemony that today seems to be taking place between these two centres of power, Europe does not have the same economic and military power as the US in terms of world domination. Even the future of the EU pact, formed by the European powers rivaling the US, is uncertain. Japan, once worshipped as the last miracle of capitalism, has long been absorbed in its own troubles. Russia, one of the new contenders for world hegemony, needs to consolidate its power for some time and therefore does not yet feel comfortable openly challenging the USA. China, on the other hand, is slyly preparing for future attacks behind high walls symbolising Asiatic traditions.

For these reasons, for the time being, the EU and the US are more likely to clash. However, each power centre takes into account not only the conditions of today but also the possible conditions of tomorrow. The real fight is over who will be the hegemonic power of the imperialist system tomorrow as a result of the capitalist construction process that started with the collapse of the old regime in two gigantic countries like Russia and China. In addition, a very important factor is how the capitalist development in big countries like Brazil and India will affect the restructuring of the system. The reason for the conflicts of the imperialist powers, which have turned into hot wars in various regions, is to secure favourable positions in the new balance of power that will emerge as a result of these developments. It is not for nothing that the US ideologues characterise the period we are passing through as a period ofprolonged war.

Our world has entered a period of great turmoil in which new imperialist powers are preparing to appear on the scene to take part in a fierce struggle for hegemony. The USA, which continues to be the hegemonic power of the capitalist system in accordance with the balance of powers of the past period, is aware that new powers, which were not taken into account before, will emerge against it. And it is actually worried about this new situation. The main reason for the increasing tension between the EU and the USA is not only the economic crisis conditions or the fight over the Middle East oil, but also this new situation that is developing. The rivalry between the US and the EU is not new, but the nature of this rivalry has changed with the new world conditions of the 21st century.

Under the propaganda motifs of the ‘clash of civilisations’ or the ‘fight against international terrorism’, the USA has put into effect a new international strategy. This new strategy is not limited to ordinary objectives such as not losing the struggle for hegemony to the known imperialist power centres of the past such as the EU or Japan. What is more important than the imperialist rivals of the past period is to prevent new rivals such as Russia and China that will confront the USA in the future. For, if these new imperialist powers, which are beginning to emerge, become stronger, and if they form new economic blocs with old rivals such as the EU or Japan, this would not only shake the hegemony of the USA. Such development possibilities are a real source of danger for the USA, which has the potential to end its hegemonic position. Therefore, the conundrum of where the EU will evolve, whether it will accept a partner like Turkey and extend its borders to the Middle East, can never be confined to religious and cultural issues, or to the economic problems of the day. It is a massive problem linked to the great battles of tomorrow.

In the race to hold important positions today for tomorrow's great battles, the USA has been in a hurry to take the lead. It was under these conditions that the US went on the offensive with the attack of 11 September 2001. After the collapse of the USSR-dominated bloc, while the flames of the war of partition in the Balkans had not been properly extinguished, this time a whole region from Central Asia to the Middle East and Africa was set on fire. In this vast geography called Eurasia, a chain of imperialist wars has been brought to the agenda, one of which is intended to be started before the other ends. The USA is trying to get closer to its potential rivals of tomorrow, Russia and China, to reach into them if possible, and to deploy military bases and troops in the regions it intends to control. The military plans that erupted with Turkey's famous question of the 1 March parliamentary resolution and were subsequently embodied in the US demands for the Incirlik base are an extension of this situation. By putting these plans into practice, American imperialism aims to directly control the possible developments of tomorrow from today.

The imperialist wars in the Middle East and other regions are the links of a great war of division that goes beyond the usual and almost ordinary aims of enriching a few war barons or controlling the oil reserves in those regions. Let us not be misled by the temporary phases of détente and periodic ceasefires that may emerge in the process we are going through. The problems of the capitalist system that are accumulating and will accumulate even more are very serious. In this respect, it is not right to tend to downplay the war in Iraq with arguments such as Bush's stupidity or that the US is stuck in a new Vietnam quagmire there. Undoubtedly, as it has happened in similar cases before, a considerable opposition to an unjust war may well develop in the world and within the USA. Or, in order to present itself to the world public opinion under a different mask, American imperialism may scapegoat and discard Bush or similar politicians who have completed their mission. However, despite all these possibilities, the US has plans to expand the imperialist war zone by putting countries like Syria and Iran in the pipeline, and to consider such plans as a mere bluff is to underestimate the reality of imperialist war.

US imperialism did not hesitate to blast life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs at the end of the Second World War in order to curb the inevitable rise of Japan in the future. It is obvious that capitalist powers, desperate with the ambition of rivalry, are capable of doing the same thing today. Under the pretext of the Iranian political regime's threats against Israel, it is quite possible that a nuclear war in the region could be launched. Moreover, the US's so-called friendly relations with future rival powers such as Russia and China should not mislead anyone. This hypocrisy is the character of capital. On the one hand, it wears the sheep's clothing today and develops commercial relations, while on the other hand, it carries out insidious war plans in which it will easily show its wolf teeth tomorrow. The troubles into which the peoples of various countries have been led due to the conflicts between rival imperialist powers show what more awaits the world under globalising capitalism.

End the empire of lies!

It was claimed that globalisation, due to the increasing integration of economic relations, would stimulate healthy growth everywhere and thus put an end to the crisis of capitalism. But what has happened is a tendency towards stagnation and a series of economic crises that have spread all over the world and caused deep concern even among pro-capitalist writers. It was said that globalisation would improve the living conditions of the masses. But the post-1980 period was characterised by the bursting of the bubble of the ‘welfare state’ or ‘social state’ that was once so much advertised in advanced capitalist countries.

It was said that globalisation would reduce unemployment, but chronic unemployment has acquired a structural character that can no longer be solved. The false balloons of the supporters of globalism, who painted a charming picture of the capitalist world with the fantasies that technological development would reduce working hours and robotisation would free people from the heavy burden of work, quickly deflated. The developments under capitalism have been reflected in the lives of the working masses in the form of longer working hours, a heavier workload and increasing unemployment.

Since the rise in the organic composition of capital with capitalist development has reduced the average rate of profit, the bourgeois all over the world have set their sights on workers' wages and the social gains the working class has achieved through historical struggles. The reduction of wages has been adopted as a general policy. The bourgeois governments, relieved of the additional burden that social expenditures would bring to the budget, allocate more and more of the funds obtained on the backs of the working masses to military expenditures. Thus, in reality, it is clear what the growing crises of globalising capitalism bring to the working masses. The days go by with decreases in workers' wages, plots to weaken the trade union movement, cuts in social expenditures, increasing militarisation, escalating tensions and preparations for new imperialist wars.

All these developments confirm the predictions of Marxism and refute the sophistry spread by bourgeois ideology. The facts are exactly the opposite of the claims that bourgeois ideologues have been reiterating for years. What they call the ‘new world order’ has turned out to be a period of unjust wars, state terrorism and fascist tendencies across the world, plunging various countries into a maelstrom of uncertainty and chaos. Globalisation has brought not global prosperity to humanity, but the global attack of capital on workers' rights and the global impoverishment of the world working class.

It is clear that the global expansion of capitalism has not and will not fundamentally change the capitalist system. This system continues to exist as before thanks to the exploitation of surplus-value derived from the labour sweat of the working class and this reality is not going to change. The nature of the claims that technological progress has gradually eliminated the working class or that low labour wages are no longer important because of intensive mechanisation is self-evident. All this has been proved to be bluster that fails to pass the test of the actual realities that are taking place.

At the end of the 20th century capitalism had raised hopes that in the advanced capitalist countries the weekly working hours could be reduced to 30 hours without loss of wages. But as the new millennium dawned, it became clear that the ‘lucky’ part of the working class that could find work was doubling its working hours with overtime and additional jobs in order to survive. The unemployed part of the class, on the other hand, has turned into ‘’ the people of the abyss‘’ in the maelstrom of hunger, poverty and despair. There is no need to say much in this context. The voices rising from the elite ideologues of the imperialist power centres, from the top organisations such as the World Bank, and the optimism that is being lost day by day among these circles reflect their growing fear of a possible social crisis.

Life is indeed characterised by contradictions. On the one hand, global capitalist development has laid the objective foundation for socialism on a world scale, while on the other hand it has made capitalism an even more dangerous and intolerable system for the human race. For this reason, global capitalism must be destroyed, not defended. On the other hand, today's conditions are loaded with serious problems that cannot afford the light-heartedness of opportunist attitudes. For example, an opponent perspective that appears to oppose globalisation but does not fundamentally oppose capitalism has no credibility, nor does it have a real capacity for struggle. In fact, to the extent that such perspectives emphasise nationalism and defence of the nation-state in the face of globalisation, they will only serve to strengthen bourgeois nationalism.

The presentation of capitalist globalisation by the world bourgeoisie as a new era in the interests of humanity is a big lie. On the contrary, the capitalist system has brought humanity to the brink of extinction. Under capitalism the productive forces have long been hindered by private property and the nation-state; these obstacles must now be removed. The existing productive forces can make it possible to eradicate hunger, poverty, disease and unhappiness from the face of the earth in a very short time under a workers' power that will bring peace to the world. However, modern technology, in the grip of capitalist competition and greed for profit, is pouring more and more death upon millions of poor and innocent people on our earth.

It is not for nothing that the bourgeois media maintains an intense barrage to erase the historical memory of the masses. It would be a mortal danger for the bourgeois rule if the working masses could for a moment escape from the influence of this ideological bombardment and remember what capitalism has inflicted on the human world. Capitalism is a system that survives its great depressions through unjust wars that claim the lives of many people. In order for this system to ‘build’ again, it must first destroy. The first imperialist war of division destroyed more than fifteen million people, the second one killed more than fifty million. What about today?

Capitalism, which is said to have turned the world into a land of abundance with bright lights flashing, has in fact turned the world into a harmful jungle of consumption that does not fulfil the material and spiritual needs of human beings. This system now proceeds like a terminator, destroying man, earth, sky and all of nature at an exponential rate. Time is running out to save all life from the hands of this terminator. The salvation of humanity depends on all the working masses of the world rising up and organising themselves to put an end to this order of savagery. This is how it will be possible to liberate present and future generations from the brutality of capitalism, to open their wings to freedom and to transform our planet into a habitable paradise, freeing it from the toxic waste of this order of exploitation, oppression and war.