Globalisation: Uneven and Combined Capitalist Development

Multidirectional movement of capital

The period of colonial expansionism of capitalism was accompanied by wars and territorial annexations driven by the ambition of the great powers to acquire ever larger colonies. The economic characteristic of this period was the increasing export of commodities to foreign markets, the import of cheap raw materials from the colonies and the desire to gain a dominant position in world trade. But with the rise of capitalism to the imperialist stage, the export of capital assumed great importance. However, commodity exports and world trade certainly continued to expand. Since, a capitalism without such elements is not possible. However, as the average rate of profit was falling in the advanced capitalist countries, capital began to flow into underdeveloped regions in search of more profitable investment areas, stimulating capitalist development in these regions.

An important point should be highlighted here. There is no rule that the predominant direction ofcapital movement would always be from developed to underdeveloped countries. It is true that, in the past, developed capitalist countries invested significant amounts of capital in their own colonies or spheres of influence. But over time, relations of big capital acquired a multifaceted character involving various countries. When we analyse the capital movements in the twentieth century, we see that at the beginning of the century, capital predominantly flowed from the developed countries to the underdeveloped world. Moreover, certain countries, which would later develop by leaps and bounds, also imported capital on a large scale. For instance, prior to the First World War, the United States enjoyed remarkable capital imports. But in subsequent periods, American capitalism would experience a tremendous rise and, following the Second World War, become the undisputed hegemonic power of the imperialist system. The US was now the number one imperialist country, exporting huge amounts of capital to Europe and other countries.

One of the most striking phenomena in the aftermath of the Second World War was the increase in economic relations and interdependence between advanced capitalist countries or regions such as the USA, Europe and Japan. Advanced capitalist countries expanded their share in world trade and capital movements. One of the main reasons for this was the desire of the capital to entrench itself by fleeing from places it considered too risky. National liberation struggles in colonies and semi-colonies had altered the risk factor in such regions in general. Moreover, the newly established nation-states were often putting into practice national developmentalist policies and nationalizations, which were considered a serious source of instability by imperialist capital. From the point of view of the imperialist powers, such countries were regarded as too unstable and precarious for large industrial investments.

 Over time, the contrast between the two categories of the underdeveloped countries became sharper: relatively stagnant ones and those with great potential for development. As the latter ones began to make quantum leaps in economic development on the basis of capitalism, the bourgeoisie in these countries became eager to demand an ever-deeper integration into the world capitalist system. In addition to the ties between the leading imperialist countries, their economic relations with the emerging medium-level development countries also intensified. For example, significant amounts of capital flowed from the US into the developing Latin American countries such as Brazil. In the meantime, there was a massive industrialization drive in the so-called Asian Tigers that attracted a large slice of capital flows.

With the US having consolidated its hegemonic position, American imperialism became the dominant force in many parts of the world. However, this situation has never completely ousted the other imperialist powers. The imperialist countries carved up the world into spheres of influence and dominated them in proportion to their power. For, workings of imperialism differ from those of colonialism. Unlike colonial powers, no imperialist country can establish an absolute dominance in any region that excludes others. For example, the flow of American capital into a South Asian country does not necessarily prohibit, say, France or Japan from exporting capital to that country. Moreover, the imperialist stage of capitalism inevitably brings the capital groups of various capitalist countries into enormously intricate relations.

With the era of imperialism, the international functioning and relations of capitalism underwent a significant change. The capitalist groups of various countries have increasingly tended to work together on a global scale. But in the meantime, the competition never ceased to exist between them. As the powerful groups of finance capital and the great monopolies of the world established an extremely complex network of relations across the globe, the phenomenon ofunity in competition has acquired a much more profound and contradictory character. Various capitalist countries, which are interconnected with each other through a thousand and one relations, are at the same time acting in such a way as to maximize their own interests and satisfy their ambitions. This brought about a clash of tendencies that pull an organic whole in opposite directions.         

As capitalism progressed on the basis of imperialism, globalisation began to mature exponentially and became more and more clearly comprehensible. In the course of this process, which gained momentum especially since the 1960s, another historical event occurred, which shook the balances in the world to the core. With the collapse of the “socialist” bloc in the late 1980s and early 1990s, new and huge territories opened up on which the capitalist system cast its ambitious eyes for expansion.

As we all know, capitalism seized this opportunity in such a way as to turn it into a shot of youth and embarked on a propaganda campaign to promote globalism. But in fact, the intensifying globalisation does not constitute a tendency of renewal and rejuvenation for the system. On the contrary, it corresponds to an intensification and sharpening of the contradictions of the senile and decaying capitalism. Having developed and improved the economic living conditions of human societies compared to the earlier modes of production, capitalism is now an obsolete system. Comparisons that involve economic, political, social and cultural dimensions must be made not in relation to the past, but in relation to the future.

Under present conditions, one can by no means confine oneself to repeating the fact that capitalism has advanced the productive forces and the living conditions to a much greater extent than the preceding periods. For, the world as a whole has long been ripe for socialism. For the well-being of the world and the humankind, socialism has long become an indispensable necessity. Only by overthrowing capitalism and establishing a true workers’ power on earth, i.e. workers’ democracy, can we advance the productive forces in a quality and quantity that are compatible with the interests of the human race, and thus achieve socialism.

A new stage beyond imperialism?

Today, production process and economic relations have acquired an even more global character when compared to the early 20th century. But this does not mean that capitalism has entered a new stage. Marxist analysis has shown that the imperialist stage of capitalism is the last stage of this system. Underlying this assessment is the fact that at this stage capitalism, created an integrated economic system that has now encircled the entire globe and reached its ultimate limits. In this respect, imperialism is indeed the last stage of capitalism. But this characterization does not conflict with the fact that imperialism has developed on its own foundations in the course of time and has reached a level of maturity that can be grasped much more clearly today. When the question of globalisation is considered from this point of view, it will be easily understood that global capitalism is by no means a new stage that differs from and transcends imperialism.

Under capitalism, which has spread around the world, creating a global market and a global system, a combined but uneven development continues in various nations. The level of globalisation of capitalism can be traced through the spread of capital movements to the remote regions of the world. While capital, in its drive to maximize profits, shifts to areas with lower costs, multinational monopolies emerge out of marriages between large monopolies. Capital becomes concentrated and centralized in certain hands. Thus, globalizing capitalism increasingly globalizes the exploitation of wage labour. Among capitalist countries with different levels of development, the gap of inequality does not close. However, the lagging countries may increase their level of economic development. They intensify and deepen the multifaceted relations with other capitalist countries. The bourgeoisies of various countries become competing shareholders of the total surplus-value created in the world. The total surplus-value is ultimately divided according to the size and power of capitals at a global level, just as it is within a nation-state.

There are proponents of capitalist order who present and defend globalisation as a brand-new stage that will put an end to the crisis-ridden functioning of capitalism. One of the points on which the champions of globalism base this claim is the increasingly more universalized character of capitalist economic relations when compared to the past. Another aspect that serves their interests ideologically is that some important tenets of Marxism regarding imperialism have been deformed over time. Certain characterizations of the imperialist stage such as “moribund capitalism”, “decaying capitalism” or “capitalism on the verge of collapse”, which were often repeated by Lenin, have also been subjected to deformation. On the basis of such distorted interpretations of various Marxist tenets, the proponents of the establishment claim that, contrary to the estimation of Marxists, capitalism has in fact not collapsed at all, but it has rather become a more vigorous and almost an eternal system.

Apart from the baselessness of such claims, the idea that capitalism will collapse spontaneously has nothing to do with Marxism. As opposed to distortions, “moribund capitalism” and similar characterizations refer only to the historical tendency, not to absolute conclusions that would come true in the imminent future. Lenin and other revolutionary Marxists have pointed out that capitalism, which has reached its final stage with imperialism, will exhibit a downward trend in accordance with the dialectical law of development. This Marxist assessment is by no means a theory of “collapse” in the sense that world capitalism will suddenly collapse due to this or that system crisis or that it will no longer be able to further expand or develop. In Lenin’s time, this issue was addressed in Comintern discussions.In his report to the Third Congress in 1921, Trotsky emphasized that if conditions changed in favour of capitalism, a new upsurge in productive forces could occur despite the tendency to collapse.

Recent and current developments prove that the imperialist powers desire to go on the offensive in the new areas opened to capitalism by the collapse of bureaucratic regimes or in regions such as the Middle East and Africa that lag behind in terms of capitalist development. In theory, it is quite possible for capitalism to make a significant economic breakthrough in the regions on which it casts its eyes as new investment areas. Moreover, the recent Russian and Chinese examples show that this is not only a theoretical possibility, but also a practical reality. However, it is also obviously clear that this situation changes the existing balances, increases the tension between imperialist powers and provokes new conflicts. And last but not least, it will sooner or later escalate the class war. It must also be remembered that the capitalist organism, ambitious for a new breakthrough, is no longer in its youth.

Through an intense ideological propaganda, the bourgeoisie is trying to portray the expansion of the senile capitalism as an era of refreshment. Capitalism’s attempt to reach out to new areas on the basis of more intricate and intensive relations is being presented as a new stage beyond imperialism. However, capitalist life is advancing with developments that are far from alleviating, halting or reversing the trend of decay indicated by imperialism, the last stage of this mode of production. Rather, decay is further intensifying in all spheres of life.

In addition to the openly pro-establishment writers, there are also various views on the left that consider globalisation a new stage of capitalism. For example, some regard globalisation as a process where capitalism moves from the stage of the international system to the stage of transnationalization. If the concept of transnationalization is used in the sense of a capitalist stage that transcends the nation-state, this approach is wrong. If this is not the intention, one should know that it is impossible to grasp reality by playing with words and building eclectic structures at the intellectual level. Likewise, theses claiming that, unlike the imperialist stage, globalisation corresponds to the division of the capitalist system into subsystems are equally unfounded.

According to these theses, the capitalist system is divided into three subsystems: the European subsystem (EU) led by Germany, the American subsystem (NAFTA) led by the US and the East-Pacific subsystem (ASEAN) led by Japan. The proponents of such theses claim that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we now live in a tripolar world. The problem here is the attempt to define a permanent new world order by drawing conclusions from a conjuncture in which the entire balances in the world have been turned upside down, plunging the system into deep instability and making the future of various imperialist unions uncertain.

One should never forget the fact that capitalism proceeds on the basis of opposing tendencies. When one forgets this fact and swings to extremes, it becomes inevitable to absolutize this or that tendency or to build theories in a purely speculative manner. Just as it borders on irrationality to argue that capitalism will unify into a single world trust, so too does the idea that it will disintegrate into isolated subsystems. The great imperialist powers penetrate not only this or that area, but various areas to varying degrees and carry out their plans accordingly. The US has built APEC to keep the dynamic countries of Southeast Asia and the Far East within its sphere of hegemony in order to prevent ASEAN, led by Japan, from turning into an independent leading force.[1]

Despite its recently eroded position, the US still holds the first position among the leading imperialist power centres. This reality is also admitted by some leading EU officials. It is said that the US economy is extremely strong, that it will remain as the world’s number one economy in the near future and that the US holds the world leadership in every field. During the Cold War, the US kept the capitalist bloc under its hegemony through organisations such as the NATO. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has retained its hegemony despite the changing world conditions. It still has control over the EU and other regional blocs ranging from Latin America to Canada, from Japan to various Far East and Southeast Asian countries. Despite its problems, which have intensified in recent years, the US is ahead of its rival, the EU, in terms of economic growth.

It is clear that the level of development of productive forces is incompatible with the reality of a world fragmented into nation-states. It is equally clear that capital is trying to overcome the barriers on its path by founding various umbrella organisations. It is also obvious that the policies pursued by capitalist nation-states in various fields cannot be permanently shaped in opposition to the needs of big capital. We live in a world where countries that cannot stand up to the competitive pressure of a large and united nation-state like the USA are trying to express themselves in supranational unions that transcend the nation-state. Let us remember that it was on such a basis that the road to the EU was paved by various European countries. Today the imperialist powers intend to take measures not only against familiar rivals but also against potential rivals. French President Chirac says that the EU needs to advance in order to stand up against the US and India. Likewise, the US is anxious to gain ground against the rising powers Russia and China, even if it is not yet openly confronting them, and to prevent the EU countries from embarking upon independent engagements.

Subsystems, overrated by some authors, are no more than economic unions of capitalist countries that need to come together against competitors. Although the idea that these subsystems could create permanent superstructures that would put an end to existing nation-state structures seems theoretically possible, it has proven to be unfounded in practice. The idea of a capitalist United States of Europe, which is supposedly the most credible one among such ideas, was shown to be a utopia as early as Lenin’s time. Moreover, today even the European bourgeoisie itself does not find this idea convincing. The future of the EU, even as an economic union, is uncertain.

As the history of capitalism proves, periods of turmoil can dissolve the existing economic pacts or modify their components while creating new unions and structures. Some countries that have long been the frontrunners may begin to lag behind, while newcomers may leap forward. Indeed, the rise of Russia and China, two countries that were not even mentioned in the capitalism’s great game of hegemony a decade ago, is evident today. With a GDP of 1.7 trillion dollars in 2004, China ranks seventh in the list of the world’s 21 largest economies and has climbed to fourth place in terms of purchasing power parity. Under the oppressive political stability provided by the top-down control of the ruling state bureaucracy, Chinese capitalism is indeed taking giant steps forward in many fields. China, which will profoundly affect the balances in the world with its rising position, is a candidate to become the main imperialist power to stand against the US, pushing the US-EU rivalry, which seems to be in the forefront today, to the background. By forming an alliance with Japan and Russia, the strengthening China can establish a rival bloc that will challenge the US.

These and similar developments are quite possible. However, based on such points, it would be an inaccurate approach to claim that the structure of the capitalist system, which is shaped under a single hegemonic power, will definitely change and that it will continue on its way by dividing into subsystems, each of which will be headed by a different hegemonic power. For, the possibilities that are interpreted in this or that way do not actually point to a new world balance, but rather to a great imbalance.

The survival of the capitalist system over a certain period of history depends, in the end, on its ability to achieve a relative equilibrium and stability. The state of equilibrium achieved under certain conditions can, of course, be disturbed when conditions change. But unless the capitalist system is overthrown, the search for a new balance and stability, even at the cost of major conflicts, imposes itself strongly and this need determines the process. The epoch of imperialism shows that relative stability in the capitalist world can ultimately be achieved through the formation of the system under a single hegemonic power.

Of course, this reality does not mean that only the absolute will of the hegemon country will prevail in the whole system. Despite the long-standing unquestionable supremacy of US imperialism, other imperialist countries undoubtedly had a say and influence to one degree or another. But in critical situations, in the final analysis, a consensus can be reached through the decisive role of the hegemonic power. The structural features of the imperialist-capitalist system require the continuation of this kind of functioning for the survival of the system. The division of capitalism into subsystems on the basis of multiple hegemonic powers would drive competition completely out of control and raise conflicts between rival blocs to a level that would put the system in mortal danger. Such a situation would not lead capitalism to a new state of equilibrium, which would have to be defined differently from today, but rather to a chaotic situation with no end in sight.

The views that consider globalisation as a new phase of capitalism actually lead in opposite directions. Nevertheless, they generally share a common feature. For, many of these views are based on old theses that are modified and presented in new packaging. A prominent example in this context is the book Empire, co-authored by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt. The book theorizes that the age of imperialism has ended and the age of empire has begun. According to the authors, the great capitalist powers will unite in a single world trust and nation-states will dissolve into this empire. Obviously, these views remind one of the ultra-imperialism theories of the past, put forward by the likes of Kautsky. Such approaches were refuted years ago by revolutionary Marxist writers. However, on various occasions they are rehashed and recirculated. And it is interesting that they continue to find acceptance among the so-called Marxist circles.

Is the nation-state being transcended?

As capitalism is driven by the concentration and centralisation of capital, the world economy is increasingly controlled by fewer but larger multinational monopolies. The combined turnover of the twenty leading multinational monopolies is greater than the gross national product of more than eighty countries. Monopoly capital has acquired a transnational structure and status through a mobility that transcends the borders of nation-states. This development undoubtedly trivialises the existence of national borders in economic terms. However, the political and social sphere has never submitted and will never submit to economic developments in a conflict-free and spontaneous manner, smoothly and simultaneously. This reality, on the one hand, exacerbates the contradictions of capitalism and, on the other hand, raises many issues of debate.

One important topic of discussion concerns the tendency towards centralisation. Despite the rivalry between them, the imperialist countries are forming supra-national unions in various fields. Thus, the capitalist system is able to achieve a certain level of centralised functioning it needs despite the obstacle of the nation-state. Of course, the centralisation under capitalism brings many additional problems to the peoples of the world and the working class. But the tendency towards centralisation has also laid the objective ground for the world proletarian revolution which will put an end to the fragmentation of humanity on the basis of nation-states. Capitalism's centralisation of the use of productive forces has made it possible to overcome this exploitative and oppressive order and to achieve the construction of socialism. This is why, as Marx pointed out, the development that centralises the bourgeoisie is in a way also in the interest of the workers.[2]

While analysing these and similar statements, it is absolutely necessary to look at the facts on the other side of the coin. Under capitalism, there can never be a one-to-one correspondence between the tendency of development in the economic sphere and its projections in the political and cultural sphere. For example, the destruction of pre-capitalist structures resulting in a progress which will ultimately benefit the working class can arise in history with methods that should never be approved politically, with the most reactionary practices and the most murderous imperialist wars. Thus, while capitalism moves forward in a way entirely of its own, the task of the working class is not to stand and salute capitalism, but to continue the struggle against it in its own revolutionary way.

It must not be forgotten that economic development tendencies, which are historically in favour of the working class, do not mean a spontaneous and easy improvement in living and working conditions. The magic key to transform historically progressive tendencies into real historical gains is the revolutionary struggle of the working class and the working class alone. Otherwise, living under a fully centralised or globalised capitalism has nothing to offer the working class for nothing. Therefore, the political attitude to be adopted in the face of such problems also offers the opportunity to distinguish between reformism and the revolutionary line. The reformist line imposes that the working class should be content with what is achieved under capitalism. The revolutionary line, on the other hand, evaluates the objective change that prepares the future in terms of the political tasks of the working class that will overthrow capitalism and establish its own power.

We can also recall the indecisive petty-bourgeois tendencies that oscillate between reformism and revolution. Even if some of them give the impression of adopting an ostensibly revolutionary attitude, in the final analysis this “revolutionism” cannot completely free itself from the conservative petty-bourgeois outlook. That is why such politics cannot accept that in the face of, say, capitalist globalisation, there can be a revolutionary workers’ struggle that can overthrow it and embark on the construction of socialism, and that this is what needs to be defended. Their whole logic is dominated by the fear that the working class will no longer be capable of struggle under a globalising capitalism. In a nutshell, what they are saying is this: The proletariat cannot cope with global capitalism, so down with globalisation!

Instead of developing a revolutionary strategy that will keep up with the course of history, petty-bourgeois leftism characteristically desires to stop or reverse the wheel of history. Likewise, the weakness of such politics is also observed in the EU example. For they are of the opinion that the working class in the countries joining the EU will have missed the opportunity of revolution. It is clear that the petty-bourgeois leftism, which, from its own narrow point of view, attempts to frame the progress of human history under capitalism, cannot save itself from being stuck in the “yes or no” dilemma of the bourgeois front on the EU and all similar issues. What is even more striking is that while opposing the perspective of opening up to the world defended by the liberal bourgeoisie in the name of so-called revolutionism, the hand of the most reactionary and chauvinist section of the bourgeoisie is strengthened (whether knowingly or unknowingly!). In short, in the end, nationalism, that is, oppressive and isolationist bourgeois policies are lent credence.

Let us return to the realities of capitalism. The need for unity stems from capital's ambition to become stronger against its rivals, but just because this is so, nation-states do not automatically disappear. No matter how incompatible the nation-state form may appear to be with the global movement of capital, the conflicts of interest between capitalist countries do not disappear, even when they are in the same supra-national union. Therefore, capital's need for the nation-state does not cease to exist. Today, the borders separating some of the European countries in the EU seem to have disappeared, but the nation-states of these countries are still in place. It remains to be seen what kind of frictions may arise tomorrow between the current components of the EU or what the fate of the EU in general will be.

The global development of capitalism is indeed challenging the capitalist functioning organised within the framework of the nation-state. There is a strong pressure exerted by this tendency. As is strikingly evident today, the desire of capital to have freedom of movement around the world and the need to take refuge in the protection of the nation-state in the face of competition are in conflict. Both tendencies are part of reality and they function on the basis of the unity of opposites. When Marx said that "capital has no nation", he meant that it does not care about distinctions such as homeland or nation, but pursues the highest profit. On the other hand, the same capital would never shy away from the hypocrisy of sanctifying its own nation-state when it wanted to challenge rival powers.

Globalisation has not, as the exaggerated interpretations of liberal bourgeois writers would have it, completely eradicated the national belonging of different capitals and the national harbours in which they have sought refuge. Despite the marriages between different capitals, conflicts of interest or struggles for hegemony between, say, American, European or Japanese capitals persist. When we analyse economic structures not cursorily, but in detail, we see their contradictory features. For example, some of the large monopolies acting on a transnational scale may well be single-national rather than multinational.

Most importantly, globalisation has so far not reduced the number of nation-states. In fact, this number has increased over time. From 56 at the time of the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the number of states exceeded 200 by the end of the 1990s as a result of the disintegration of colonial empires and creation of new nation-states or splitting of some countries. It is incompatible with today's realities to claim that the globalisation of capital will find its reflection in the field of nation-states in a short period of time or that nation-states will easily merge with each other and melt into a single empire, as in the case of monopolies from different nations marrying economic interests.

It is conceivable that nation-states with historically, culturally and geographically very close points of contact, for example some European countries, could unite and create a common nation-state. However, even if such a thing were to happen, this cannot be extended to the whole world, nor does it mean the disappearance of the nation-state. Moreover, even the United States of Europe, which some bourgeois writers have been voicing as a long-standing aspiration for many years, is still an unrealisable dream, let alone the world in general.

In fact, scepticism about whether the EU can realise the goal of a more limited political union predominates today. Even when we analyse the problem from a purely economic point of view, we see that the conflicts of interest and rivalries between members of the European Union have not come to an end. It is well known that monopolies with different national identities compete fiercely with each other in strategic areas such as military investments. For example, the story of the fierce rivalry between EU member Britain and Germany in the jet aircraft industry is damning for those who claim that nation-states have disappeared.

The nation-state and private property are the main barriers to the free socialisation of the means of production. Under capitalism, the productive forces make progress by struggling with these barriers. Nevertheless, neither globalisation can abolish nation-states nor, say, the spread of joint stock companies can socialise property. On the other hand, it is entirely true that capitalism has developed the productive forces to such an extent that the nation-state and private property must be transcended. But this correct observation does not prove that there can be a capitalism without the nation-state and private property, it proves how it has become necessary to transcend capitalism in the direction of socialism.

According to those who derive from the reality of globalisation the myth that the nation-state is disappearing, today is the era of the "shrinking state-growing market". It is true that the market is of indisputable importance for capitalism, but to what extent does the claim that the state is shrinking correspond to reality? This issue needs to be questioned carefully. Yes, it can be said that the state has regressed and shrunk in terms of some of the tasks it previously undertook. But this fact does not describe the general position of the bourgeois state, but a special case, the reduction of the functions of the so-called "social state". Apart from this, it can also be considered that the influence of individual nation-states in economic decision-making has diminished and regional or supra-national unions have more say. However, despite all these tendencies, the bourgeoisie's need for its own nation-state persists and even today, compared to the relatively calm periods of the class war, nation-states are equipped with new tasks and powers. Today, due to the escalating tensions on a world scale, the state in all capitalist countries is being reinforced militarily. Rising militarism, repressive measures against the working-class struggle, intensifying fascist practices are expressions of the increasing effectiveness of nation-states.

To summarise and emphasise, global development under capitalism has not at all weakened the conflict of interests between nation-states, as one might think. It has not led to the emergence of a new transnational political and legal organisation without conflicts. On the contrary, the great imperialist powers, which are in competition with each other, have fuelled nationalist conflicts by fuelling problems arising from national and ethnic or religious and sectarian differences in the regions subject to the redivision struggle. Without disregarding the legitimacy of the current national liberation struggles, it should be noted that the imperialist powers can at any time inciting national problems that seem to have been overcome and scratch old wounds in order to prepare the ground for new wars of division. As it happened yesterday in the Balkans, today in the Middle East or in Russia, the rulers can, when their own interests dictate, fuel national and ethnic divisions, break up a previously formed multinational state and pave the way for the establishment of new nation-states.

The level of the productive forces today necessitates a production process organised in the interests of society and humanity in a world not divided into nation-states. But in our opinion, this is impossible under capitalism. However, there are those who think that this historical necessity can be fulfilled under capitalism. Otherwise, they say, capital itself would be cutting off the very branch on which it is riding, and this would be an absurdity. They seek in capitalism reason and rationality that it does not contain. But capitalism is a mode of production which creates its own irrationality with its own hands, even at the cost of inconceivable stupidity and madness. Therefore, the very idea that the necessities imposed by the economic course or the needs of humanity can be fulfilled under capitalism is itself problematic. Those who hold this view underestimate the contradictions of capitalism. They imagine that these contradictions, which now clearly make human life difficult, can be eliminated not by overcoming capitalism in a revolutionary way, but through evolutionary development. In doing so, they only deceive themselves and others.

As we have seen in history with different examples, the maturation of conditions within a mode of production which impose its overcoming begins to strain the old superstructure, its institutions and formations. Obstacles to development, which become more and more serious, cannot be overcome within the form of organisation of the given mode of production. Radical social transformations cannot take place spontaneously, but only through revolutions. In the past, the development of capitalism within feudalism put bourgeois revolutions on the agenda of history, not a leap to a new type of feudal mode of production that transcended localism, but bourgeois revolutions that would overcome feudalism. Today, the deepening and sharpening of the contradiction between the productive forces and the nation-state and private property will not bring about a capitalism that has put an end to nation-state organisation or private property and the conflicts that derive from it. We are living in a historical period in which all the developments on our globe make the world workers' revolution more and more imperative every day; hear ye!