Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
Index
Part 1: Critical approach to the positions of the CPG
• Reasons for a response to the Communist Party of Greece (CPG)
• Greece must leave NATO! Or should not it?
• The CPG’s subterfuge to avoid debate
• No support for capitalists?
• Reactionary Venezuela?
• The member organizations of the Platform “ignore or deny” that the current mode of production in the world is capitalist…
Part 2: Criticism of the ideological foundations of the CPG
• A handful of countries?
• “Imperialist pyramid” or Lenin’s theory of imperialism?
• Idealism hidden in “Imperialist pyramid”
• Methodological error
• No participation of communists in governments led by the bourgeoisie?
• Are there no stages between capitalism and socialism?
• Erroneous positions are not harmless
• Incorrect and damaging derivations
Part 3: Imperialism vs. imperialism?
• A long work
• Brief and concise summary of the “imperialist pyramid” and the CPG study method
• A big mess
• China and Russia belong to the G20
• State presence in Russian companies
• Foreign penetration of the Russian economy
• “Gigantic amounts” of capital export from Russia
• The “big” Russian banking
• Warmongering Russia?
• A brief parenthesis
• Production structure of Russia, China and other countries
(The previous sections have been published in past issues.)
Production structure of Russia, China and other countries
Throughout this writing we have been astonished by the CPG’s capacity for data management and economic analysis…, and let it not be misunderstood, not because we think it is an outstanding capacity, admirable for its seriousness, thoroughness and objectivity, but on the contrary, because it is careless, simplistic and, above all, covered with subjective subterfuges. A piece of information thrown into the air, without destination, like a ball in a soccer game thrown to the public, would be, according to the CPG’s vision, an accurate, precise and concise piece of information. It seems that the capacity for reflection and self-criticism is absent in that game, because if he had it, he would have realized that the ball must reach the opposite goal, not the public, and not the goal itself. Indeed, the analytical color blindness of the CPG does not only consist, as we have seen throughout this work, in shots in the air, but in something worse: goals against one’s own goal. The CPG has converted in its mind into imperialists and enemies of the peoples of the world those countries which in reality are neither imperialists nor enemies.
If this idea were kept silent in the “master” minds of the CPG, and did not make noise within reality, there would not be a problem. But this is not the case. The CPG has dedicated itself to spread that idea like a tree its seeds to the four winds, with the “small” difference that seeds generate life and the ideas of the CPG, on the other hand, are rather comparable to a toxic air.
With the propagation of its absurd idea of the “Imperialist Pyramid” the CPG has caused a part of the international communist movement to end up separating itself from the important struggles that are taking place today in more and more parts of the world. A very serious fact!
The actors of such struggles, either by a real capacity of analysis of reality (and not apparent, as is the case of the CPG) or by an accurate instinct, understand that Russia and China are not enemies, but friends of the peoples of the world. And precisely the communists should be today not only assuming that understanding, but leading it. But the CPG sleeps dreaming of chimerical purism?
The essence of this writing, as we have pointed out throughout this article, is to break with the idea of the CPG, particularly with that crude idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, which, as we have seen, is based neither on a rigorous nor on a dialectical analysis of reality. The idea of the “imperialist pyramid” is obstinately mechanistic, simplistic and covered with subterfuge. Therefore, it cannot be qualified as a scientific idea.
We, as the Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) and member of the World Anti-imperialist Platform, unlike the CPG, do not ask ourselves questions about whether we “like” a capitalist Russia, product of the liquidation of the USSR, whether we like an anti-communist Putin, because a communist does not understand reality according to his subjective tastes. Nor do we consider it relevant to ask ourselves whether we “like” that China continues to maintain strong capitalist structures in its economy to this day. What interests us is the important and fundamental role that China is playing today in overcoming imperialism and how it is advancing with sure steps in the construction of a socialist society. Objectively, neither Russia nor China are imperialist and, objectively, they are playing (again) an essential role in the international anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggle. This is the only fact that should matter to a communist.
To deliver arguments as solid as possible, to those who are immersed in the debate about the imperialist character or not of Russia, but also of China, and who seek to defend the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist role of these two countries, that has been the sense of this article. And one of the most relevant data, if not the fundamental one, is the productive structure of the countries. The productive structure of a country determines the character of its economy and, therefore, whether it can be described as imperialist or not. This part, although it is perhaps the most fundamental of the whole writing, has been left at the end because of its complexity. For this part, we have broken down thousands and thousands of data and we have taken many weeks to do it…, very different from the practice of the CPG, which in a matter of minutes takes some data from somewhere and honestly believes (it must be admitted) to have done a great work of investigation.
Since a detailed study of the production structure of a country, especially when it affects several countries, is an almost impossible task to carry out, since it would require collecting information from all the companies in each country, which is not available in an aggregate form in the IMF, WB and other databases derived from these, we decided to use the export structure of the countries, which, although not an accurate reflection, is a good reflection of the production structure of the countries, since each country exports according to its own production capacity.
The data analyzed corresponds to 2022, the latest year for which processed data is available. The following tables and graphs have been compiled from the BACI[1] database, which contains almost 11 million data records.
We have classified the exported goods according to their level of industrialization from 1 to 6 as described in the following table:
Graphic 1: Scale of industrialization level
According to our classification, 97 % of the products exported by Russia belong to categories 1, 2 or 3 (see the Table 5), which indicates a low industrial level of the country (it should be noted that these data were collected before the lifting of the sanctions packages against Russia as a “response” to the start of the special military operation in Ukraine).
Table 5: Russia’s export structure in 2022 Values in thousands of U.S. dollars
Graphic 2: Curve corresponding to Table 5 (Russia 2022) in percentages
Table 5 shows an export curve with a shape similar to that of a mountain and a valley (see Graphic 2). It can be seen that most of the goods exported by Russia belong to category 2 and, secondly, to category 3, i.e. they are goods which for their production do not require a medium or high level of industrial development. Exports of goods of categories 4, 5 and 6 account for less than 3% of total Russian exports in 2022. Since the export structure is a very reliable reflection of a country’s production capacity and industrial development and, moreover, taking into account that the production structure of a country does not change rapidly, it can be concluded that Russia is mainly an exporter of raw materials, reflecting the low level of Russia’s industrial development in the post-Soviet era.
However, it should be emphasized that Russia has embarked on a process of industrialization since the sanctions were imposed. It will take time, but in the future we will see a Russia with a higher level of industrialization. We wish this process were faster, in consideration of the increasing risk of war that NATO imposes on Russia. In this regard, we welcome the appointment of the new Minister of Defense, Andrei Belousov, who was educated during the Soviet years and is in favor of maintaining a strong industrial base in the hands of the state. Andrey Belousov was born on March 17, 1959. He graduated from Moscow State University in 1981 with a degree in cybernetics and economics. He was Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation and Director of the Department of Economics and Finance of the Russian Government. From 2012 to 2013, he headed the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. From 2013 to 2020, he was Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation for Economic Affairs. On January 21, 2020, he had been appointed first deputy chairman of the Russian Government.[2]
Let’s look at the export structure of other countries, for example the G7 countries. Will they have a similar structure to Russia?
No.
At least 20% of the total goods exported by each of the G7 member countries are of categories 4, 5 and 6 (see Table 6). With the exception of Canada, in all the other six G7 member countries, 25% of the total exported goods belong to categories 5 and 6.
This indicates a high to very high level of industrialization in these countries.
Table 6: Export structure of G7 countries, year 2022
Values in thousands of US dollars
The graphical export curve of these countries resembles two mountains with a valley in between. One can also imagine the humps of a camel. (see Graphic 3):
Graphic 3: Curve corresponding to Table 6 (G7 2022)
Values in percentages
We have assessed a total of 64 countries, which is sufficiently representative of the global situation. We will complete the missing countries at a later date. However, this will only confirm the conclusions drawn on the basis of these 64 countries assessed so far (33% of the total number of countries recognized by the United Nations), since the countries we have examined include all representative countries, from an economic and territorial point of view, as well as in terms of population. Thus, what is valid for these 64 countries is even more so for all the countries recognized by the UN.
Among the 64 countries selected, there are all NATO countries (except the Czech Republic, whose data are not available, i.e. 30 countries), the BRICS+ (9 countries), Mexico, all socialist countries (in alphabetical order: China, Cuba, Laos, DPRK and Vietnam), and the largest countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. If we have missed any representatively relevant countries, we will correct them in a later publication.
The first 9 countries considered are Brazil, Greece, Iran, Chile, India, Jordan, Congo, Indonesia and Kazakhstan (see Table 7).
With the exception of India where the figure reaches 20.4%, in none of the remaining 8 countries do exported goods of categories 4, 5 and 6 exceed 20% of the total goods exported by the country.
Table 7: Export structure of the countries of the Global South, year 2022
Values in thousands of US dollars
(Brazil, Greece, Iran, Chile, India, Jordan, Congo, Indonesia, Kazakhstan)
With the exception of India, the countries listed in the Table 7 are thus characterized by a low level of industrial development. Their economic structure is therefore the opposite of that of the G7 countries. As highly industrialized countries, the G7 countries are not only economically dominant, but also have to absorb large quantities of raw materials to feed their production chains. It is precisely countries such as those in the Table 7 that supply these raw materials.
The same is true for the following nine countries (Russia, United Arab Emirates, China, South Africa, Egypt, Tajikistan, Sudan, Ethiopia and Afghanistan), with the exception of China, which has an export share of goods in categories 4, 5 and 6 of a remarkable 62 %. In other words, 62 % of the goods exported by China belong to categories 4, 5 and 6, indicating a very high level of industrial development in the country.
All the other countries follow a curve similar to the one we have seen for Russia.
The case of Iran deserves a special mention: Iran has a strong industrial development that is not mainly focused on the export of goods, but on national security and development.
Iran has a prominent position in international politics, both because of its geographical position and its military might. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always opposed US imperialism, NATO and Israel. It has also carried out actions of solidarity with national liberation struggles in West Asia and Latin America (especially Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela) and has expanded its relations with several African countries, China and Russia despite the economic sanctions and the continuous terrorist and interventionist actions of imperialism against it. Iran is the only country in the region that poses a real threat to Israel.
Table 8: Export structure of the countries of the Global South, year 2022
Values in thousands of US dollars
(Russia, United Arab Emirates, China, South Africa, Egypt, Tajikistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan)
In the next group of countries, there are two exceptions: Mexico and Vietnam. Sixty-seven percent of the goods exported by Mexico are of categories 4, 5 and 6. In the case of Vietnam, the figure is 56%.
The remaining seven follow a structure similar to that of Russia, or, conversely, Russia has an average structure of the countries of the so-called Global South.
Vietnam is a country that corresponds to the contemporary socialist camp, that is, a country that is advancing in the construction of socialism (not without setbacks, of course). The Russian president’s trip to this country, which took place just as these lines were being written, is significant above all because of the historical moment and the political context in which it takes place: the International Court of Justice has issued an arrest warrant against the Russian president, which obviously has no effect; the Russian army has recently made remarkable progress in the fight against NATO and fascism in Ukraine, and the sanctions imposed on Russia have proven to be completely ineffective. But there is another important development that has taken place and is taking place precisely in the host country, i.e. Vietnam:
In recent months, there has been a stark political struggle there between two factions: one supportive of the United States and the West in general, and one supportive of China. In March, Vietnam’s hitherto incumbent president, Vo Van Thuci (his term lasted from March 2, 2023 to March 21, 2024), was removed, one year after his appointment, by parliamentary decision. Vo Van Thuong is the second Vietnamese president to resign in the last two years.
Both he and his predecessor, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, pursued a policy of rapprochement with the West, especially the US and its allies in Asia, particularly Japan. His resignation is related to the political purge being carried out in the country by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, who maintains very close contacts with the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China . Since May 22, 2024, the so-called “strong man of the party,” supporter of the confrontation with the United States and member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Tô Lâm, took over as President of Vietnam. Tô has a good chance of being Nguyễn’ s successor in the post of general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
It is no coincidence that Putin arrives in Vietnam after the pro-Chinese-Russian faction in Vietnam has been defeated, which may indicate that this faction has gained a definite foothold in the country.
Table 9: Export structure of the countries of the Global South, year 2022
Values in thousands of US dollars
(Mali, Kenya, Laos, Algeria, Nigeria, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Argentina)
None of the following twelve countries is an exception. Cuba, Norway, Belgium, Niger, Albania, Burkina Faso, Iceland, Montenegro, Tanzania, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Syria, for example, are countries with a low level of industrial development whose main production function is the extraction of raw materials and their export to the rest of the world.
In the case of Cuba, it should be noted that export data do not accurately reflect the country’s production structure due to the sanctions imposed on the country. Cuba is internationally recognized as a leading country in medical technology.
Table 10: Export structure of the countries of the Global South and poor countries of Europe, year 2022
Values in thousands of US dollars
(Cuba, Norway, Belgium, Niger, Albania, Burkina Faso, Iceland, Montenegro, Tanzania)
Graphic 4 includes all the countries of the Global South that we have seen, except those that represent an exception: China, Vietnam, Mexico and India. All the other countries present a similar curve shape: a mountain and a valley with a small hill. It can be said that the shape of this curve is the shape of the non-imperialist countries and resembles this:
The G7 curve resembles the two humps of a camel:
The G7 countries are at the same time strong in the export of raw materials―such as, for example, grain, meat or oil (which the EU now buys from the USA)―but they are also strong in the production of goods with high added value, i.e. they have a high level of industrial development.
Table 11: Export structure of the countries of the Global South, year 2022
in thousands of US dollars (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria)
Graphic 4: Curve corresponding to the Tables seen for Global South and poor countries in Europe 2022. Values in percentages (35 countries)
The more deindustrialized the country, the flatter the mound on the right. The curves for the BRICS+ countries are shown below.
Graphic 5: Curve for BRICS+ (Global South 2022)
in percentages
Only China exceeds 20% in the level 5 category and has a curve similar to that of the G7 countries.
The penultimate chart shows the NATO countries that are not members of the G7, with the exception of seven countries that have been included in the Graphic 4 as poor EU countries (Greece, Norway, Belgium, Albania, Iceland, Montenegro and the Czech Republic):
Graphic 6: Curves corresponding to the export quantities of NATO member countries according to the classification of the level of industrialization of the exported goods. according to the classification of the level of industrialization of exported goods, excluding the G7 countries and excluding the following seven countries: Greece, Norway, Belgium, Albania, Iceland, Montenegro and the Czech Republic, Albania, Iceland, Montenegro and the Czech Republic.
Values in percentages
An interesting fact is that these other 17 NATO members also present a curve similar to that of the G7, i.e. a curve that resembles the two humps of a camel. In other words, 80% of NATO countries have an industrialized production structure. This leads to the conclusion that, although not all NATO countries are imperialist per se, they are imperialist in systemic terms, i.e. because they are part of the international structure of exploitation. These 17 NATO members benefit from the present form of economic and political exploitation because they are on board the NATO military ship, even if only as ordinary members of the crew.
Greece is part of the small 22% (7 countries) of NATO member states to which this logic does not apply. It can also be said that Greece is a small island in the global south in the middle of the NATO sea.
Finally a summary of all the curves:
We have, then, two forms of opposite curves: one of the dependent countries and the other of the imperialist world. In addition, there is a third one, which is that of the countries which are not imperialist, but which, due to the size of their population and/or their economic structure, have managed to industrialize. In the next publication we will draw conclusions on this and on the rest of the data presented in this article.
Notes
[1] This can be downloaded from here:http://www.cepii.fr/CEPII/en/bdd_modele/bdd_modele_item.asp?id=37, under “Downloads”.
Direct download link to the zip file:http://www.cepii.fr/DATA_DOWNLOAD/baci/data/BACI_HS92_V202401b.zip
[2] In “Deutschland Funk” it reads:
“This Moscow-born economist is considered an advocate of state industrial and economic policy. In terms of economic theory, he is therefore more a follower of the teachings of John Maynard Keynes (state control of the macroeconomy) than of Milton Friedman (the market regulates everything). ‘Beloussov was one of those who saw the state as the main driver of everything, and at the same time he analyzed the same data as we do, unlike most other pro-state economists, who just juggled with abstractions,’ says Konstantin Sonin, an economist and professor at the University of Chicago.”