The political stance of the Communist Party of Greece … a communist stance?

Part 3: Imperialism vs. imperialism?

A long work
The first part has shown how inadequately the CPG refutes the opinions of communists who do not share its views. We have seen that it does not attempt fraternal debate, but resorts to misrepresentation of ideas and disqualifications which take the place of arguments.
In the second part, we have shown the main defects of the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” and concluded that this idea can in no way be considered Leninist.
Now it is time to move on to more concrete questions. Unfortunately, there are many questions that concern us but little time and space to develop the answers: Are China, Russia and other countries like Iran or Venezuela imperialist? Are countries like Niger or Argentina imperialist? Can Cuba be considered imperialist? And so on and so forth. However, due to limited time, we will only be able to cover the most important points. Therefore, we will focus on Russia and China and contrast their non-imperialist character with the states that we consider clearly imperialist: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan. It is possible to include Canada and Italy in the list of imperialist states. But beyond these 7 countries, it seems to us hardly possible to extend the list of imperialist states according to our criteria, the basis of which we will develop in the following pages.
Furthermore, we will explain why the People’s Republic of China is in our opinion socialist, although there is no socialism in it, at least not a mature and consolidated socialism. It could also be said that China is in the first phase of the construction of socialism, that it is, therefore, a primitive, immature and, as such, intrinsically contradictory socialism, with successes and failures, with advances and setbacks.
And we will set out the reasons why the postulates of the CPG and, in general, of so-called “Eurocommunism” are particularly harmful to the communist forces and the proletarian struggle in the world.
As the third part is more extensive than the previous two, it will not be possible to cover it in a single publication. We will have to divide it into several parts.

Brief and concise summary of the “imperialist pyramid” and the CPG study method
In part one and especially in part two of this article we have discovered the political purism of the CPG and its remarkable ability to jump from correct ideas (the rejection of opportunist, reformist and claudicative positions) to purist and chimerical ideas in a single paragraph and sometimes even in a single sentence. We have seen that its position divides communists into two absolutely and irretrievably separate groups: the “true communists” (at the top of which, according to the CPG itself, this party is situated) and the “opportunists” (a group made up of all those who do not share its positions 100%).
We discover that the CPG applies an idealist (in the philosophical and not in the moral sense) logical and not a dialectical-materialist method of analysis. To better substantiate this assertion let us look at what the postulate of Logic says: “a thing is what it is, a thing is or is not, but it cannot be and not be at the same time”1). And now let us look at what the postulate of Dialectics says: In the words of Frederick Engels Dialectics “understands things and their conceptual images essentially in their context, their concatenation, their movement, their formation and decay”2). Georges Politzer adds that from “the dialectical point of view, everything changes, nothing stays where it is, nothing remains what it is”3). Guerrero adds that for Dialectics: “A thing is never what it is. In order to be what it is, a thing has to let itself be what it is”4).
The political purism, the enormous leaps from correct to chimerical ideas, and the use of the logical rather than dialectical method of enquiry are seen in the following quotation:
“The confrontation within the ICM, as the KKE has highlighted many times, has many aspects. For example, it is taking place:

Between the parties that support the co-opting of the CPs into “broader left progressive alliances” and those that struggle for the preservation of the ideological-political independence of the CPs and the strengthening of their ties with the working class and the popular strata.
Between the parties that remain entrapped into the old strategy of “stages towards socialism” and support the participation in bourgeois “left”, “anti-neoliberal”, “progressive”, and “centre-left” governments in the framework of capitalism, and those that have rejected the participation in bourgeois governments and the rationale of stages and struggle for the overthrow of capitalist barbarity.
Between the parties that identify imperialism exclusively with the USA or some powerful capitalist countries of Europe or foreign aggressive policy, and the parties that are based on the Leninist conception that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the highest and last stage of the exploitative system.
Between the parties that consider that the struggle for peace is inextricably linked to a “multipolar world” that would supposedly tame the USA, fostering illusions about a supposedly “peaceful international architecture”, which is promoted by social democracy and opportunists, and the parties that believe that the capitalist world cannot be “democratized”, that it cannot escape from wars no matter how many “poles” it has, and that it is necessary to strengthen the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism, for the new, socialist society.
Between the parties that consider China to be a country “building socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the parties that believe that socialism has principles that have been violated in China, where capitalist relations of production have now prevailed; that this is a country of the modern capitalist world, which in fact is competing with the United States and threating its supremacy in the imperialist system.”5)

——————–

To give a few examples:

Political idealism (purism): “[…] and those that have rejected the participation in bourgeois governments and the rationale of stages and struggle for the overthrow of capitalist barbarity”. Remarkable aversion of the CPG to any bourgeois government. The CPG seems unable to distinguish between progressive bourgeois governments, on the one hand, and reactionary and counter-revolutionary (philo-fascist) governments, on the other. Reactionary bourgeois governments often disguise themselves as progressive and revolutionary. Instead of denouncing the “disguise”, the CPG, due to its inability to distinguish between form and substance, refuses to cooperate with any kind of bourgeois governments, even if they seek the nationalisation of enterprises of strategic interest, the reversal of privatisations and the deindustrialisation of the country, the strengthening of the country’s military power, the waging of a real war against the big organised crime capitalists, etc. If they are bourgeois governments, there can be no alliances of communists with them, says the CPG.

Logical method of analysis: “Between the parties that identify imperialism exclusively with the USA or some powerful capitalist countries of Europe or foreign aggressive policy, and the parties that are based on the Leninist conception that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the highest and last stage of the exploitative system.

The CPG cannot conceive in the least that a synthesis between all this is possible, i.e. that it is possible to understand that the USA is the hegemonic country par excellence, that there are other countries which share with it the property of being imperialist, that from such a property emanates its aggressive foreign policy and furthermore that such an understanding means precisely supporting the “Leninist view that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, the highest and last stage of the system of exploitation”. The CPG separates the waters and then is incapable of bringing them back together again, which Moses at least succeeded in doing.

Big jumps: “Between the parties that support the co-opting of the CPs into “broader left progressive alliances” and those that struggle for the preservation of the ideological-political independence of the CPs and the strengthening of their ties with the working class and the popular strata.” 

How correct is the CPG’s position in rejecting opportunism, reformism and, more generally, those political and ideological positions which seek to alienate the working class and the other social sectors which share its destiny from the struggle for the new society. How correct is also his demand that the communist parties must preserve their “ideological-political” independence. How correct is also the postulate that the communist parties must strengthen their links with the working class and the popular strata. But all these correct ideas lead to an absolute chimerical purism in which the communist parties end up as sects prevented from forming “broader progressive left alliances”, and thus the CPG leaves the working class and the popular strata alone in a alone struggle against big national and imperialist capital, abandoning all possible good allies of the left to reaction.

——————–

We consider the term “imperialistic pyramid” used by the CPG to be rather imprecise, as it implies that a thing, in this case a pyramid, has a property, in this case that this pyramid is imperialistic (i.e. “the pyramid is imperialistic”, just as saying “the affable ladder” means that “the ladder is affable”). It should be obvious to any reader with average reading comprehension that a pyramid built of stone and surrounded by sand can hardly be imperialistic in itself. Perhaps the pharaohs buried in them were. But the pyramid, incapable of transforming its environment, is nothing more than an inert thing devoid of intellectual or moral qualities that could enable it to be imperialist. We believe that with this term the CPG wants to point out that “the structure of imperialism is pyramidal”. At least that is how we have interpreted it. If we are mistaken in our interpretation of the concept, we are grateful for the CPG’s fraternal clarification.

We have seen that imprecision of terms is a constant in the texts of the CPG.

We have also seen that the CPG bases its arguments on disqualifications, but above all on a revision of Lenin’s theory of imperialism. Now, it seems to us that the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” is not only a revision of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, but (in our opinion) a dangerous attempt to replace it.

The CPG’s “reasoning” is based on a moral and subjective assumption: “it is capitalist = it is bad”. With this idea in mind, it “weaves” a “sack” into which it puts all “imperialist countries”, which, given its purist assumption (“it is capitalist = it is bad”), includes practically all countries recognised by the United Nations (because very few, if any, countries today meet the criteria of being “purely socialist-communist”). This CPG argument can be translated into a new equation: “(almost) all countries of the world = imperialist countries = imperialism or international imperialist system”. Countries are neatly placed in the bag according to how much “power” they wield (the CPG does not explain why some countries wield more “power” than others, nor in what sense such countries are or are not “powerful”). Once the “sack” is filled to overflowing, the CPG finds that there are stubbornly a few countries at the top of the sack (those with a lot of “power”) and many at the bottom (those who, conversely, have little “power”). From the shape of the sack, which is narrower at the top and thicker at the bottom, the CPG extracts with “imaginative acuity” and “remarkable capacity for abstraction” the three-dimensional version of the triangle: a pyramid, and gives it the title ‘imperialism’ or ‘international imperialist system’. In short, all the countries of the world recognized by the United Nations (and probably also those not recognized) would be imperialist and together they would form the ‘international imperialist system’, which is also called ‘imperialism’.

This is the “model” of imperialism proposed by the CPG. We have seen that this idea is contrary to Lenin’s theory of imperialism, although the CPG insists with great vigour on claiming to be Leninist, as if by asserting something it makes the assertion that something.

In its essence, this idea seeks to equate all countries in which the capitalist mode of production prevails with imperialism and thus to abolish the dialectical antagonism between the countries of the world postulated by Lenin, an antagonism which exists independently of the character of the mode of production prevailing in these countries and also independently of the orientation of their foreign and domestic policies. The central basis of Lenin’s theory of imperialism is the realisation that there is a very small group of imperialist countries and a large majority of countries which are plundered and exploited by these countries. This constitution comes about because such imperialist countries have huge monopolies and powerful banking systems which enable them to export gigantic amounts of finance capital or banking-industrial monopoly capital. The expansion of capital is followed by military expansion, which explains, for example, colour revolutions, the economic collapse of states (as in Greece, for example), coups d’état and wars.

In our opinion, it is essential not only to defend the Leninist postulate of a bunch of imperialist countries, but also to reject the attempt to revise and even replace Lenin’s profuse theory of imperialism with the (in our opinion infantile) idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, because the latter, as we have already seen, leads to dangerous and harmful conclusions from the point of view of the anti-imperialist struggle, the anti-fascist struggle and the struggle of the workers of the whole world for the conquest of political power and for their liberation from wage slavery.

One of the most dangerous findings of the CPG, derived from its concept of the “imperialist pyramid”, is the position it has taken on the conflict in Ukraine and how it classifies Russia and China as enemies of the international working class and the peoples of the world, even on the same level as the USA, the imperialist countries of the European Union, Japan and its belligerent spawn NATO.

These are the reasons that have led us to give a response to the CPG.

A big mess

The CPG, in its familiar tone unbecoming of a political debate among communists, claims that the assessment of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform that there is no economic data to justify calling China or Russia imperialist “once again seeks to distort reality”6) and “refuses [it refers here to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform] to face reality”.7) And to demonstrate “conclusively” that our opinion is wrong, it launches a veritable “hodgepodge” of data supposedly proving that China and Russia are imperialist:

“The WAP argues that “That there is no economic data to justify characterizing China or Russia as imperialist. These are countries that do not live by superexploiting or looting the world. They do not put other countries into military, technological or debt slavery” and that “Russia and China are not aggressive imperialist powers but, on the contrary, are targeted by our enemies because they stand in the way of the USA’s complete global domination”.

With these statements, the WAP once again seeks to distort reality. It is as if China and Russia do not participate in the G20 summits, the meetings of the 20 most powerful capitalist states of the world, together with the USA, Germany, the UK, France, etc. It is as if the Chinese and Russian monopolies do not export capital to other countries, aiming for the profit that comes from exploiting the labour power not only of the workers of their own country, but also of many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, wherever their monopolies develop. It is as if the Russian “Wagner” private army is deployed in Africa for charitable reasons and not to defend the interests of the Russian monopolies operating there. It is as if China is no longer moving in a similar direction to safeguard the Belt and Road Initiative by military means. It is notable that this initiative includes the small but very important in geographical terms state of Djibouti — whose debt to China amounts to 43% of its Gross National Income — where China’s first military base outside its borders was inaugurated in 2017.”8)

Here we have just read two paragraphs with a real “hodgepodge” of data. The second paragraph begins with an allusion to the G20, then lists some member countries, then alludes to the existence of exploitative Chinese and Russian monopolies, then stumbles over the Russian private army ‘Wagner’, then wanders along the “belt and road” to Djibouti and its 43% debt to China, and finally ends with a visit to the first Chinese foreign military base…

The CPG seems to think that a cascade of disconnected data proves something. In reality, however, what emerges is a gelatinous amalgam of unrelated data that is difficult to “grasp”. Perhaps that is even their intention. We do not know…

To respond to the above assertions, one has to dissect this gelatinous and convoluted paragraph and go step by step through the list of incoherent facts presented as arguments.

China and Russia belong to the G20

Let’s start with the first statement in the quote: China and Russia are members of the G20. 

The attentive reader will surely ask: What does this prove — that these two countries are imperialist by virtue of their membership of the G20?

Let us look at the full list of G20 members (in alphabetical order): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America and, the only non-country member, the European Union. The G20 members (the 19 countries and the EU) account for approximately 85 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product, just over 75 per cent of international trade and about two-thirds of the world’s population, according to the G20 website9).

Membership of the G20 alone would make a country imperialist, argues the CPG. It claims this without having made the slightest attempt to prove it. If this were the case, all member countries would be imperialist. Thus, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Turkey and Brazil (to name but a few) would be as imperialist as the UK, France, the US or Germany (coincidentally, the only countries mentioned in the above quote from the CPG text). This would be a direct deduction from the CPG statement.

In our opinion, the imperialist countries are those listed in the quoted paragraph of the CPG (plus Japan and eventually Canada and Italy). The others are large countries (some with reactionary political systems and governments and others with progressive political systems), but they cannot be called imperialist. The characteristic of being a big country and the characteristic of being an imperialist country are not synonymous. We have pointed out in our statements that “this line [we refer to lines of reasoning such as those of the CPG] is based on a wrong theoretical premise (that every large economy in the capitalist world must automatically be imperialist)”.10)

Even more curious is the fact that the CPG mentioned the G20 but not the G7. Let us look at the list of G7 countries (in alphabetical order): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.11) Here we have a real list of the “world’s most powerful capitalist states” and it does not include China, nor, today, Russia.

In 1998, Russia joined the forum, which adopted the new name G8 or sometimes also called G7+1. Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable source, seems to understand the facts better than the CPG. Its website (in its spanish version) claims that Russia joined the forum ‘because of its political weight and not its financial weight’.12) In 2014, imperialist states excluded Russia from the forum over the secession of Crimea and its incorporation into the Russian Federation.

It is striking that the CPG has decided not to mention the G7 as the international forum of the “most powerful capitalist states in the world”, but the G20. The reason seems to us to be that the G7 does not include Russia and China, which the CPG insists on considering among the “most reprehensible” countries in the world, but the G20 does. It should also be noted that of the G20 members, the CPG only mentions those countries that are generally considered imperialist and avoids mentioning those for which there is no such consensus. It is these argumentative quibbles that the idea of the “imperialist pyramid” makes possible. This construction allows the CPG to arbitrarily move an imaginary demarcation line up and down the “imperialist pyramid” and place it wherever it suits them. Apparently, the G7 sits “too” high up in its pyramid, leaving out Russia and China, so the CPG shifts its imaginary demarcation line down a little until it finds “something” that includes both countries. And then it calls this “something” the “most powerful capitalist states in the world”. It is fortunate for the CPG that the G20 is not a G80…

The CPG always has the possibility of adjusting its imaginary line of demarcation in its “imperialist pyramid” at will. It can raise or lower it even to the base of the pyramid. This shows that his “theoretical” construction is not scientific, since it can be adjusted at will. Science, on the contrary, demands that the analytical system be adjusted according to the objective reality independently of the will.

State presence in Russian companies

The same quote 6 lists a number of large Russian companies, followed by an etcetera and the claim that these companies “exploit millions of workers, not only in Russia”, but also in various parts of the world:

“They refer to Russia, where giant monopolies (Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Rosatom, Sberbank, Norilsk Nickel, Rosvooruzhenie, Rostec, Rusal, etc.) exploit millions of workers, not only in Russia but also in the former Soviet Republics, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Africa, South America, Europe, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, etc.”13)

The authors of the article do not consider it necessary to elaborate on the “data” they present. For example, the CPG list interchangeably mixes companies with and without state participation. However, this distinction is important in assessing Russia’s imperialist or non-imperialist character and cannot be ignored. A state that participates significantly in economic activity is not the same as a state whose main and almost exclusive function is to guarantee private ownership of the means of production.

And Russia is distinguished by a state with relatively high participation in production and distribution.

For example, the Russian state’s share in Gazprom is 50.23%14), in Rosneft it is 50% (indirectly)15), in Sberbank it is 50%16), in Rossatom it is 100%, in Aeroflot it is 73.84%17), in Rostec it is 100%18), in the United Aircraft Corporation (OAK) it is 92.3% (through Rosimushchestvo)19), in Rosoboronexport (successor company to Rosvooruzhenie and Promexport20)) it is 100% (through Rostec)21), in the Moscow Stock Exchange it is 30.1% (through the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, Sberbank and VEB. RF)22), in VTB Bank it is 92.2%23) and even in companies such as Novatek and VK Group the state is represented, albeit only to a small extent (4.5%24) through Gazprom and 5.7%25) through Rostec, respectively) and so on and so forth until there are 668 Russian companies with full or partial state participation. 

The number and size of state-owned enterprises is higher than in most other countries in the capitalist world. State ownership is concentrated in sectors of strategic interest to the country (energy (oil, gas, nuclear and electricity), banking, defence and transport).26)

The Rosimushchestvo report27) shows that there are a total of 668 Russian companies in which the state has a more or less significant shareholding. The absolute majority 563 companies are owned by the Russian Federation through Rosimushchestvo. Of the 668, the state has a 100% stake in 299 companies. In other words: In 44.7% of Russian companies with state participation, the state is the full owner. In 36 companies it has a 50-100% stake. In another 49 companies it has a 25-50% stake, and in the remaining 263 companies it has a stake of less than 25%. It should also be noted that only about 40 companies out of the 668 companies listed in the Rosimushchestvo report are listed on the Russian stock exchange.28)

These facts, as we have pointed out, must be taken into account in assessing Russia’s possible imperialist character.29) The bourgeois ideologues, unlike the CPG, understand them very well:

“In his book ‘Property Rights in Post-Soviet Russia’, UC Berkeley professor Jordan Gans-Morse writes that ‘after the Khodorkovsky incident, everyone’s bureaucrats and law enforcement officials increased government pressure on business. Threats of asset seizures, facilitation of illegal business raids, extortion, unlawful fines or unlawful arrests were threatened’.

More and more companies came under state control, especially in the case of banks and companies in the energy industry. Already in 2016, Joshua Kurlantzick, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), wrote about these issues in his book State Capitalism. How the return of statism is transforming the world. In his opinion, ‘in Russia, state-owned enterprises strangle any potential competitor that might emerge from the private sector. Under Putin, the Kremlin has allowed one or two state-owned companies to dominate almost all leading industries. Each company is staffed by management loyal and faithful to Putin. Companies that have resisted the state takeover have been hit with taxes, regulations and other punishments. Many of the most promising young entrepreneurs have fled the country’.”30)

As indignant as the bourgeois ideologues are about state involvement in the Russian economy, so indifferent is the CPG to it. This quote makes it abundantly clear that state ownership and control, especially in areas of strategic interest to the country, are an obstacle to free capitalist exploitation.

The importance we attach to the participation of the Russian state31) in the Russian economy arises from the role Russia plays today in the struggle against imperialism and the resurgence of fascism in Europe. Probably, the present Russian government was not pushed to adopt an anti-imperialist and anti-fascist position by its own decision, good will or anti-imperialist and socialist sentiments, but independently and even in spite of this will because of NATO’s relentlessly aggressive policy against Russia. Possibly, it was the desire of Russia’s post-Soviet governments to take a different path from that imposed on them by the war policy of imperialism, which never saw Russia as a state that would be part of the sharing of the world, but as another appetizing piece of land to be plundered, like the continents of Africa, Latin America and Asia. From its aspiration to join NATO and become part of the “Western” system of exploitation, Russia eventually reoriented itself towards the East and South:

“Russia is turning away from the West and towards the East. 

‘If there was ever an illusion that one day we could trust our Western partners, that illusion no longer exists,’ Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told state broadcaster RT on Friday. His country will never accept a world order dominated by the United States.”32)

“Lavrov announces Russia’s reorientation of economic and foreign policy towards Asia

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced today that Russia will reorient its economic and foreign policy towards Asia as it antagonises the West over the military campaign in Ukraine.”33)

Since the CPG applies an idealistic and logical method of analysis, it is not at all capable of grasping the importance of the fact described above for the international struggle against imperialism.34)

It is precisely the presence of the state in the economic affairs of the country that has contributed significantly to the fact that the economy of today’s Russia has not been taken over by imperialist capital. In other words, the point of maintaining a Russian state presence in the production and distribution of the country is to guarantee degrees of national sovereignty, to prevent the full colonisation of the Russian economy by finance capital, or rather imperialist capital, and to enable the Russian state, which has been unwilling to place its sources of strategic raw materials under the direct domination of imperialist enterprises and subordinate its chains of production and distribution to those dominated by imperialist states, to cope with the onslaught of NATO.

And Russia’s ability to stand up to NATO coincides with the independence aspirations of more and more countries in the non-imperialist world: 

The World Anti-Imperialist Platform has pointed out in its statements that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, carried out against NATO and the reborn fascism in Europe, was going to open up new possibilities of struggle in the oppressed world, plundered and outraged by imperialism. For us, the militants of the Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action), affiliated to the World Anti-imperialist Platform, the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was a welcome surprise.35)

Russia’s increasing reorientation towards the East and South has strengthened many of the economies of the countries in these regions and their efforts to become independent from US and EU hegemony.

A weak Russia would be a serious blow to the processes of emancipation against imperialism that are developing in more and more countries. The most recent case is Niger, where the military forces, supported by the broad masses of the people, decided to stage a coup d’état to overthrow the former president of the country, Mohamed Bazoum, a corrupt lackey of France and the USA. On this very important event from the point of view of the struggle against imperialism, the CPG, to our astonishment (again), has maintained a stony silence. On its English-language website not even a negative statement calling for the reinstatement of imperialism’s lackey government can be found.36)

Contrary to the CPG’s assumption, we “face reality”. Even if the CPG does not believe it, we are clear enough to agree with it that there is exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie in all countries where the bourgeois mode of production prevails. In Russia as well. It is also clear enough to us that the state bureaucracy exploits the workers in its own country and, of course, this is also the case in Russia. Our defence of state involvement in Russian production is not based on the fact that we ignore the existence of exploitation in Russia’s state enterprises or in the Russian economy in general. 

We express our support for Russia, even if it is capitalist, for the following reasons:

(1) The rates of exploitation of the workers by the state enterprises are lower than the rates of exploitation by the big private monopolies.

(2) The struggle for the final defeat of imperialism is the central struggle of the present.

(3) A strong state is a good basis for building socialism in a country.

In general, workers in state-owned enterprises enjoy stable jobs, higher levels of qualification and job security and social protection.

The presence of the Russian state in Russian enterprises allows for the influence of the broad masses of the people in Russian politics. A state that (almost) only represents the interests of private capital leaves political decisions exclusively in the hands of big national capital and, through it, foreign capital, as is the case in most dependent countries. But at the same time we recognise the inadequacy of such participation and warn of the vulnerability of the Russian state if it does not become more involved in domestic production and control the supply (distribution) chains more tightly, because we believe that it is in the interests of the struggle for the new society that Russia can continue to stand victoriously against NATO and rising fascism in Europe. This requires a strong, guiding, planning state with greater degrees of political participation of the broad masses of people, particularly the working class. More workers in the state sector also means lower degrees of wage exploitation.

We see that the CPG is unable to recognise the positive importance of the present Russian state for the defence of national interests, for the Russian working class and, at the same time, the obstacle it represents for big imperialist capital. The latter coincides with the aspirations of the peoples of the world for emancipation from imperialism. What the CPG does not achieve, the bourgeois press does. Thus, an article in the “Berliner Zeitung” with the headline “Putin rächt sich am Westen: Konzerne werden verstaatlicht — bevor sie ihr Russland-Geschäft verkaufen” (in english: “Putin takes revenge on the West: nationalises companies before they sell their businesses in Russia”) reads as follows:

“The Russian government suddenly takes over the business of Danone and Carlsberg in the country. The two companies had already found a buyer.

The Russian government has taken control of the Russian subsidiaries of Danone and Carlsberg’s Baltika breweries. It is the first nationalisation since the takeover of energy groups Uniper of Germany and Fortum of Finland, which were put under state supervision in April this year.

The Danish brewing group said on Monday that the company had not been officially informed of the move. ‘The Carlsberg Group has acted in accordance with local rules and regulations in Russia and finds this development unexpected,’ Carlsberg said.

Carlsberg had already submitted an application for sale in Moscow

The decree, signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday evening, said Russia was taking the shares in the companies, owned by the French food group and Russia’s leading beer producer, under ‘temporary administration’.

The Carlsberg subsidiary Baltika employs 8400 people in eight plants in Russia. Shortly after the Russian attack on Ukraine, Carlsberg had declared that it was ‘seeking a complete divestment of our business in Russia’. The move by the Russian government caused confusion as Carlsberg had only announced at the end of June that it had found a buyer for the Russian plants. In order to complete the sale, Carlsberg said it had already submitted an application to the Russian regulatory commission. 

If Western companies want to withdraw from Russia, however, they have to accept high discounts. Their Russian assets can only be sold for a maximum of half their price and they have to make a ‘voluntary contribution’ to the Russian state of five to ten percent of the sale proceeds. Ultimately, the sale still requires government approval.”37)

The claim of the article is clear: How could Putin think of nationalising. We welcome these measures and would like to see the nationalised companies remain in state hands. But even if, sooner or later, these nationalised companies will be taken over in whole or in part by the country’s private capital, at least they are national capital and the economic resources circulate within the country and not abroad.

Foreign penetration of the Russian economy

Although the presence of the state in areas of strategic interest to Russia has been a major obstacle to the penetration of imperialist capital in Russia, this penetration unfortunately exists.38).

Let’s look at some facts. 16.71% of Gazprom’s share capital are ADRs (American depositary receipts)39). The issuing bank of these ADRs is the Bank of New York Mellon, based in the United States, New York.

19.75% of Rosneft’s share capital is owned by BP Russian Investments Limited, a British company, and another 18.46% is owned by the Qatari company ‘QH Oil Investments LLC’. In other words, 38.21% is non-domestic capital.40)

33% of Sberbank’s share capital comes from US investors and another 6.24% from European investors. In other words, 39.24% are not national capital.41)

The shares of Novatek, a quasi-private company (as we saw above, through Gazprom the state has a 4.5% stake) are distributed among three main shareholders, two individuals (Russian oligarchs) and one company. The two individuals are the CEO, Leonid Mikhelson (25%) and Gennady Timchenko (23%). The company, which ranks third among Novatek’s shareholders, is not a Russian company, but a French monopoly: TotalEnegrie.42)

The case of the Moscow Stock Exchange is equally worrying. From a corporate point of view, 15.8% of the shares of this body are held by the following three companies: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, State Street Bank & Trust Company and The Capital Group Companies, Inc (each holding just over 5% of the shares). The situation becomes even more worrying if share ownership is broken down by country: the US holds 35.90% in the form of companies and individuals, the UK 9.40%, France 6.20%, Canada 3.00% and Sweden 2.60%. Together these countries account for 57.1% of the shares of the Moscow Stock Exchange against 39.7% for Russia (including the state’s share).43)

Accessing information on the ownership structure of companies is not easy. There are companies that provide insufficient information and others that do not. However, these examples show an ownership structure of Russian companies penetrated by foreign capital.

Contrary to CPG claims, Russia is not a plunderer, but a plundered country that tries to limit the subjugation of its companies, production capacities and control over supply chains precisely by a state that assumes responsibility for the economy. 

We believe that the Russian state would do well to take over on a larger scale both the enterprises in the hands of large domestic private capital and foreign capital, at least in areas of strategic interest to the country. The Russian state in its present form does not yet seem to us insufficiently strong to confront NATO as a whole in a very possible future direct confrontation.

Unfortunately, the interests of the big capital often, but not always, conflict with national interest44). The current Russian government, while defending Russia’s national interests, also defends the private interests of the big capital at home. National interests often clash with the interests of the national, and especially foreign, big capital. This prevents the Russian state from changing its character from a state that serves to defend the private ownership of the means of production (and distribution) to a state with big economic responsibility and a centrally planned system to govern the national economy. But it is precisely the political forces that demand this that communists outside Russia should support, among them the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

A formulation that more accurately describes the reality of the exploitation of Russian enterprises is that imperialist capital, through Russian enterprises, exploits the national workers, in unison with Russian big capital. This fact that big national capital joins forces with imperialist capital to exploit the working class is a common feature of all non-imperialist countries. In this context, the importance of the Russian state is crucial, as it further limits national economic dependence on imperialism.

It is possible to point out then that Russia has a relatively strong state which enables it to counteract economic penetration as well as NATO’s military aggression against it. It is also true that Russian enterprises, including those of strategic interest to the country, are affected by the penetration of imperialist capital.

We strongly defend the role of the Russian state in defending national interests and its attempts to advance the strengthening of national industry. We also recognize that Russia’s current role against NATO and fascism in Europe is congruent with the struggle of the peoples of the world for national sovereignty and against imperialism. A weakening of Russia would be detrimental to the peoples of the world who want to achieve their national sovereignty.

That is why we are very concerned about the penetration of imperialist capital into the Russian economy. We want to see a strengthening of the Russian state, a greater planning role for it and greater interference in national production. In our opinion, the strengthening of the Russian state must necessarily come at the expense of the big oligarchic groups in the country, in whom we see the main problem for Russia and for the rest of the world fighting for freedom. The interests of the owners of big capital are in conflict with the interests of the great majorities of the country. And in the face of the growing danger of a direct NATO confrontation with Russia, we hope that the Russian government will have the wisdom to lower the living standards of the Russian oligarchs in favor of national industry, in favor of the technological development of the country, in favor of the Russian army, in favor of health, housing and education.

The ability to critically analyze reality, i.e. to recognize contradictions, to understand that every part of reality is contradictory in itself, as is also the case in Russia, and to extract a synthesis from this critical analysis, is absent in the CPG. It recognizes the “bad” or the “good”, but is unable to grasp both aspects at the same time and to extract a synthesis from them. Despite the negative aspects of Russia, the synthesis says that Russia’s role in the struggle for the emancipation of the peoples of the world from imperialism is relevant and positive. Its failure to recognize this is the basis of the damage the CPG is doing to the international communist movement at present.

In the following parts we will look at issues such as: the export of capital from Russia abroad, Russia’s productive and commercial structure, Russian banking and Russia’s military presence in the world. 

Notes

1)   Guerrero, Patricio, “Campo de estudio de la ciencia económica: algunos aspectos básicos” (in english: “Field of study of economic science: some basics”), (photocopy), 1999, p. 4. 

A book version is available at: https://books.google.de/books/about/Campo_y_m%C3%A9todo_de_estudio_de_la_ciencia.html?id=bcaBzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

2)   In the original in German: “die Dinge und ihre begrifflichen Abbilder wesentlich in ihrem Zusammenhang, ihrer Verkettung, ihrer Bewegung, ihrem Entstehn und Vergehn” auffast.

Engels, Frederick, “Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwälzung der Wissenschaft” (in english: “Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science”), in: Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels — Werke, Berlin, DDR: Dietz Verlag, Band 20, 1962, p. 22. 

A digital version of the work in English is available from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm

3)   Politzer, Georges, “Principios elementales y fundamentales de Filosofía” (in english: “Elementary and Fundamental Principles of Philosophy”), Argentina, Colección Eneida, 1971, p. 115. 

A book version is available at: https://www.casadellibro.com/libro-principios-elementales-y-fundamentales-de-filosofia/9788446022107/975911

4)   Guerrero, op. cit.

5)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “On the ideological-political confrontation at the 22nd International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties and the “trick” about the “anti-Russian” and “pro-Russian” sentiment”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/On-the-ideologicalpolitical-confrontation-at-the-22nd-International-Meeting-of-Communist-and-Workers-Parties-and-the-trick-about-the-anti-Russian-and-pro-Russian-sentiment/

6)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG), “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform and its damaging and disorienting position”, in: https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/On-the-so-called-World-Anti-Imperialist-Platform-and-its-damaging-and-disorienting-position/ 

7)   Communist Party of Greece (CPG), op. cit.: “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform…”

8)   Partido Comunista de Grecia (PCG), op. cit.: “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform…”

9)   G20, “About G20”, last updated on 30.06.2023, in: https://www.g20.org/en/about-g20/ 

10)   World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP), “The rising tide of global war and the tasks of anti-imperialists (Full text)”, in: https://wap21.org/?p=566

11)   We would also like to point out a fact. From the statement: “The PAM claims that ‘There would be no economic data to justify calling China or Russia imperialist.’ […] It is as if China and Russia did not participate in the G20 summits, the meetings of the 20 most powerful capitalist states in the world”, it follows that the member states of the G20 are without exception imperialist countries. This idea contrasts with the idea of the “imperialist pyramid”, according to which almost all or perhaps all countries recognised by the UN would be imperialist. Either all countries in the world are imperialist because they have more or less developed trade relations, or only the G20 countries are imperialist.

12)   Wikipedia, “Creación y  evolución del G7”, in: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7

13)   Partido Comunista de Grecia (PCG), op. cit.: “On the so-called World Anti-Imperialist Platform…”

14)   Gazprom, “Grwoth at Scale, Gazprom Annual Report 2020”, in: https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/LSE_OGZD_2020.pdf, p. 31, in the section “Share Capital”.

15)   Rosneft, “Shareholder structure”, 1 July 2021, in: https://www.rosneft.com/Investors/Equity/Shareholder_structure/

Fin-plan, “Компании с государственным участием на российском фондовом рынке” (in english “Empresas con participación estatal en la bolsa rusas”), 11 July 2022, in: https://fin-plan.org/blog/investitsii/kompanii-s-gosudarstvennym-uchastiem-na-rossiyskom-fondovom-rynke/?ysclid=ll6d6lqh77551810745

16)   Smart-Lab, “структура и состав акционеров Сбербанк” (in english “Companies with state participation at the”), 8 May 2020, in: https://smart-lab.ru/q/SBER/shareholders/ 

Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…” (in the footnote 63)

17)   Aeroflot, “Shareholder Capital Structure”, last seen on 7 August 2023, in: https://ir.aeroflot.com/ensecurities/shareholder-capital-structure/

18)   Smart-Lab, op. cit. “структура и состав …” .

Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…” (in the footnote 63)

Rotec, “History”, last seen on 14.08.2023, in: https://rostec.ru/en/about/history/ 

19)   Gazprombank, “Компании с государственным участием на Московской бирже” (in english: “Companies with state participation on the Moscow Exchange”), 17 February 2023, in: https://gazprombank.investments/blog/reviews/state-participation-companies/?ysclid=ll6d6fo92l147691067 

20)   The CPG is not distinguished by a high level of rigour. In its list of Russian ‘giant monopolies’ (Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Rosatom, Sberbank, Norilsk Nickel, Rosvooruzhenie, Rostec, Rusal, etc.) it lists the name of the company ‘Rosvooruzhenie’, which no longer exists because it merged with ‘Promexport’ and together they became ‘Rosoboronexport’.

21)   “On 10 January 2017, in accordance with the resolution of 26 December 2016 of the sole shareholder, Rostec State Corporation, Alexander Mikheev assumed the position of General Director of JSC Rosoboronexport.”

Rosoboronexport, “History of the company”, last seen on 14.08.2023, in: http://roe.ru/eng/rosoboronexport/history/index.php 

22)   Moscos Exchange, “Shareholders owning over 5 per cent of shares”, data updated as of 4 April 2023, in: https://www.moex.com/s1352 

23)   VTB Bank, “VTB Bank Annual Report 2022”, in: https://www.vtb.com/media-files/vtb.com/sitepages/ir/VTB_Annual_report_2022_ENG.pdf

24)   Energy Intelligence, “Gazprom Restructures Minority Ownership in Novatek”, in: https://www.energyintel.com/0000017b-a7da-de4c-a17b-e7dac5550000

25)   Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…” (in the footnote 63)

26)   Apparently, there is a case of privatisation: the case of Gazprombank. As North Stream II failed to get off the ground, it seems that Gazprom was forced to sell its voting shares in Gazprombank to private individuals. It does not seem to be clear who the new owners of these shares are. At the time of writing, we have not been able to find more precise information.

Warsaw Institute, “Gazprombank CEO: Gazprom’s Shares Acquired by Russian Entities”, in: https://warsawinstitute.org/gazprombank-ceo-gazproms-shares-acquired-russian-entities/ 

27)   Rosimushchestvo, “Учет и мониторинг федерального имущества. Состав и структура пакетов акций (долей), находящихся в федеральной собственности по состоянию на 26.11.2021” (in english “Accounting and monitoring of federal property. Composition and structure of blocks of shares (stakes) in federal ownership as of 26.11.2021”, from 03.06.2022, in: https://rosim.gov.ru/Attachment.aspx?Id=202132 

28)   Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на…”

29)   The arguments that are usually put forward to refute the importance of state involvement in the Russian economy are similar to the following: “state capitalism is not socialism”, “if the state is capitalist, it makes no difference whether the enterprises are state or private, the exploitation of the working class is one and the same”, “the Russian state bureaucrats exploit the Russian working class and the working class of other countries”.

30)   MercadoLibre, “Así secuestró Putin la propiedad privada en Rusia” (in english: “How Putin hijacked private property in Russia”), published on 14/4/2022 – 10:11 hrs., in: https://www.libremercado.com/2022-04-14/putin-propiedad-privada-rusia-6885221/

31)   It is debatable whether or not the Russian economy can be described as state capitalism. But it is not the purpose of this paper to enter into this debate.

32)   Fundscene, “Lawrow – Russland hat alle Illusionen über den Westen verloren” (in english “Lavrov – Russia has lost all illusions about the West”), 18 March, 2014, in: https://fundscene.com/lawrow-russland-hat-alle-illusionen-uber-den-westen-verloren/

33)   Swissinfo.ch, “Lavrov anuncia que Rusia reorientará política económica y exterior hacia Asia” (in english: “Lavrov announces Russia’s reorientation of economic and foreign policy towards Asia”), published on 07 December 2022 at 11:47 hrs., in: https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/ucrania-guerra_lavrov-anuncia-que-rusia-reorientar%C3%A1-pol%C3%ADtica-econ%C3%B3mica-y-exterior-hacia-asia/48115656

34)   The usual arguments to dismiss Russia’s new orientation towards the East and South include: “the Russians do not fight fascism and imperialism on principle”, “they say they fight fascism in Ukraine, but in reality they only want to spread their imperialist wings over new markets (in Ukraine)”, “how naive those who think they see something good in the Russians”, and so on a list of arguments based on moral values and not on objective facts.

35)   Our party, a few days after the Russian special military operation began, published a statement of support entitled “Declaration of the Communist Party of Chile (Proletarian Action) in the face of the latest events in the Ukraine” which reads for example: 

“We see Russia’s military incursion as a decisive response to the ongoing violations and breaches of international agreements signed by Russia and the ‘West’.”

Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria), “Declaración del Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria) ante los últimos sucesos en Ucrania” (in english: “Statement of the Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria) on the latest events in Ukraine”), written on 27.04.2022 and published a few days later, in: https://accionproletaria.com/declaracion-del-partido-comunista-chileno-accion-proletaria-ante-los-ultimos-sucesos-en-ucrania/

36)   Our party quickly issued a statement on this important development in Niger. The statement reads:

“Russia’s struggle in Ukraine against NATO and fascism opens a space of struggle for all peoples who want to free themselves from the imperialist yoke. The new world must have a sovereign and industrialised Africa!”

Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria), “Los Comunistas, el Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria), saludan el despertar de África” (in english: 

“The Communists, the Communist Party of Chile (Acción Proletaria), salute the awakening of Africa”), 7 de agosto 20237 August 2023, in: https://accionproletaria.com/los-comunistas-el-partido-comunista-chileno-accion-proletaria-saludan-el-despertar-de-africa/

37)   Berliner Zeitung. “Putin rächt sich am Westen: Konzerne werden verstaatlicht — bevor sie ihr Russland-Geschäft verkaufen” (in english “Putin takes revenge on the West: corporations are nationalised — before they sell their Russia business”), 17 of July 2023, in: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/wirtschaft-verantwortung/sanktionen-wladimir-putin-raecht-sich-am-westen-danone-und-carlsberg-werden-von-russland-verstaatlicht-li.370088

38)   Since sanctions against Russia came into force, it has become more difficult to obtain data, at least from some parts of the globe. For several Russian companies, links to annual reports are inaccessible. We do not know why. To obtain the relevant data, we have had to find ingenious ways to get around the obstacles as much as possible.

39)   Gazprom, op. cit. “Grwoth at Scale, Gazprom Annual…”, p. 31, in the section “Share Capital”.

40)   Rosneft, op. cit. “Shareholder structure”

Fin-plan, op. cit. “Компании с государственным участием на российско…”

41)   Smart-Lab, “структура и состав акционеров Сбербанк” (in: “Estructura y composición del accionariado de Sberbank”), 8 de mayo de 2020, in: https://smart-lab.ru/q/SBER/shareholders/

42)   Energy Intelligence, op. cit. “Gazprom Restructures Minority…”

43)   Moscos Exchange, “Shareholders owning over 5 percent of shares”, data updated as of 4 April 2023, in: https://www.moex.com/s1352 

44)   National interests are those that transcend social classes and are shared by the majority of the population, such as strong production, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, food and energy security.