Qualitative changes in the world capitalist system - the current stage of imperialism
Over many decades, the SACP's understanding of imperialism has been informed by Lenin's important analysis, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1915). Lenin took for granted many of the key features we associate with the term "imperialism", such as colonial conquest, national oppression and war. He was concerned in his analysis to uncover the underlying essence and motive force of imperialism. He concluded his analysis stating that imperialism "…emerged as the development and direct continuation of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development".
In other words, for Lenin, imperialism was recognizable as a development of capitalism in general, but at a particular late stage of its development, with specific features distinguishing it from capitalism as it existed in earlier stages.
Specifically, Lenin saw imperialism as linked to the following characteristics of capitalism:
- The rise of monopoly capital - resulting from the rapid concentration and centralization of capital in the major imperialist countries during the 19th century.
- The merger of monopoly industrial and bank capital to form what Lenin called finance capital.
- The export of capital as distinct from the export in earlier stages only of commodities.
- The formation of international monopolistic associations or cartels.
- The territorial division of the world between imperialist powers.
Capitalist globalisation, a higher stage of imperialism
The current qualitative changes occurring in the world capitalist system represnt a new stage of capitalist "globalisation". To paraphrase Lenin, the present stage in the world capitalist system "emerged as the development and direct continuation of imperialism. But imperialism only became capitalist globalisation at a definite and very high stage of its development".
In other words, "capitalist globalisation" is, essentially, a development of imperialism, but at a late stage of its development with specific features distinguishing it from imperialism as it existed earlier, including at the stage analysed by Lenin.
- Contemporary capitalist globalisation has emerged at a particular historical period. The present period is not the first time the world economy has witnessed a "widening and deepening of trade flows". The end of the 19th century and the early 20th century to the 1st World War saw "globalisation" on a scale not matched until recent times.
- The period between World War 1 and the mid-1970s, however, saw some partial retreat from the "globalising" dynamics of the process of imperialism, with protectionism in many countries.
- The resurgence of "globalisation" in recent times follows a period of crisis and major restructuring in the world capitalist economy. In addition to the short run cycles of boom and bust intrinsic to capitalist development, global capitalism also develops through "long waves" of expansion and contraction. The period between the end of the 2nd World War and the mid-1970s was a "long wave" of expansion. The mid- to late-1970s saw the system entering into crisis and a "long wave" of contraction. This saw massive destruction of capital followed by a major restructuring of capitalism. It is this restructuring which defines the present phase of capitalist globalisation".
Restructuring and transformation of the forces of production
The current "globalisation" phase of capitalism is most obviously associated with an extensive and intensive restructuring and transformation of the forces of production. In many respects these advances represent major progress in human civilization.
Some of the most obvious features of capitalist "globalisation" as a process of restructuring of the forces of production include:
- A major technological revolution. A central feature of the late 20th century restructuring of capital has been the rise of "information and communications technology" and of ICT derived knowledge as the driving force of rising productivity and accumulation. A number of writers (e.g. Manuel Castells, Hardt and Negri) have compared the rise of "informationalism" to the early 19th century "industrial revolution", in terms of its significance for the development of productive forces. The technological revolution is not only confined to ICT, but reaches into a very wide range of production processes and products.
- A transition from an international to a transnational mode of operation in the capitalist world economy. Until the late 1960s, although countries traded with each other to a growing extent, "the bulk of their economic activities remained home-centred" (Hobsbawm) and the basic modus operandi of the world economy remained international. From the late 1960s on, however, an "increasingly transnational economy began to emerge" characterised by "a system of economic activities for which state territories and state frontiers are not the basic framework, but complicating factors". "Some time in the early 1970s", writes Hobsbawm, "such a transnational economy became an effective global force."
- The emergence of globally "networked enterprises". This phrase is associated with the writings of Manuel Castells. According to Castells, networks rather than firms have become the main organizational form of contemporary global production. These are constantly shifting, cross-border link-ups of units of economic activity. The system is constantly promoting the link up of "useful" economic activity (production, distribution and exchange) across national borders; and at the same time marginalizing or excluding activity that ceases to be "useful". "Inside the networks, new possibilities are relentlessly created. Outside the networks, survival is increasingly difficult", The Rise of the Network Society. Countries, sectors, and peoples are either "in" or "out". Those that are "out" are increasingly being marginalized with dire consequences for incomes and living standards. This has been accompanied by increasingly strong competitive pressures on national economies and productive sectors to adapt to the norms of globally networked capitalism. Elements of this include pressures on enterprises to focus on their "core business", to "down size" and "outsource" peripheral activities.
- A Strengthening of Multi-Lateral Institutions of Global Economic Regulation. The process of liberalization and deregulation at national level has been accompanied by a strengthening of regulation at the global level. Institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have become more important and influential, regulating not just trade in commodities, narrowly defined, but an increasing list of "trade related" issues like intellectual property rights, investment measures, etc. A concomitant of this has been an important relative shift in the locus of sovereignty. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have, for example, argued that "Control…is not in the hands of the political forces that are traditionally conceived as holding sovereignty, and consensus is determined not through the traditional political mechanisms…Consensus is determined more significantly by economic factors, such as…speculation on the value of currencies" (Empire).
But the current phase of capitalist "globalisation" has its roots in a systemic, global capitalist crisis
The current phase of capitalist "globalisation" is often associated primarily with major
technological and organizational advances in the forces of production of the kind noted above.
This is not, of course, entirely wrong. However, underpinning and driving the current phase of capitalist
expansion and innovation is the attempt to surpass the systemic crisis of declining profitability that
manifested itself in the mid-1970s, with its origins in the most developed economies of the North.
The post-World War 2 quarter century (1945 to the early 1970s) saw a long-cycle of expanded production
and relative capitalist prosperity. However, by the mid-1970s there was an increasing crisis of
"realization" for the capitalists. That is, in an increasing range of sectors, before profits could
be fully realized on the very large fixed investments required by capitalist production, those
investments became obsolete because of new technological developments. In other words, by the mid- 1970s
there was the emergence of a classic contradiction between the potential of the forces of production
unleashed by capitalist development, and the profit-driven relations of production associated with it.
Although world capitalism is not about to collapse because of its systemic crisis, it is also incapable of
surpassing this crisis within the boundaries of the capitalist system itself. To some extent, the mid-1970s crisis of declining profitability has been overcome with the barrage of measures associated with neo-liberalism. But these "solutions" have tended, in the long run, to deepen the systemic problems of global capitalism. Indeed, over the longer-term, the deep and destructive contradictions of capitalism, driven by profit maximization, are a threat to human civilization and the environment on which our civilization depends. In the short and medium-term, the responses of global capitalism to its systemic crisis, all serve, in one way and another, to exacerbate the underlying contradiction. Responses have included:
- The unsustainable intensification of the exploitation of natural resources, and the more extensive (globalised) pursuit of exploitable natural resources;
- Enforced liberalization and privatization, not least in the South - opening up new "terrain" for private profit-taking. This neo-liberal agenda is designed to secure freer movement of commodities, capital and financial instruments. Notably excluded from this agenda of liberalization is labour - (with the important exception of highly skilled labour).
- In contradiction with the above, there is also growing protectionism within advanced capitalist countries with respect to "grandfather" industries vulnerable to competition from new comers. This protectionism is placing an unbearable burden on the South. In the South economies are forced, through structural adjustment measures and other means to remove their own regulatory measures. Yet it is precisely these economies of the South that most need some degree of shelter in order to nurture development and growth.
- The "financialisation" of investment, in which the relative proportion of investment in productive activities has diminished significantly, with capitalist investors increasingly shying away from long-term commitments to "bricks and mortar" projects in favour of shorter-term exposures that can more easily be entered into and exited from. This financialisation explains the increasing shift towards "hot money", which has played such a destabilizing role in the recent period.
- In the more recent period we have also seen the reversion to massively increased military spending, specifically in the US, a traditional capitalist response to a systemic capitalist crisis. This post-Cold War re-militarisation is, in part, a response to perceived (and actual) "terrorist" threats (themselves the symptoms of the terrible contradictions unleashed by rampant, profit-driven globalisation); but it is also an economic response to declining profitability.
Each one of these responses, organically linked to the logic of capitalism, deepens, rather than resolves, the crisis facing the whole of humanity. These and other responses from the developed North have, in particular, resulted in:
High Levels of Unevenness and Growing Global Inequality
Inequality both within and between countries has risen. A study published in April 2001, for example, indicates that the global GINI coefficient was both greater on the world-scale than in individual well-known unequal societies, and that it has increased from 62,5 in 1988 to 66 in 1993. Over the same period the share of income going to the poorest 10% of the world's population declined by 27%, while that going to the richest 10% increased 8% (Robert Wade, The Economist, 16/4/2001).
The massive restructuring of the forces and relations of production associated with capitalist "globalisation" have also had a dire impact on women. Enforced privatization and budget-cutting have impacted on the capacity of the public sector to deliver health-care, education, care for the aged and the very young, and also to deliver basic necessities. The burden of this growing social deficit falls heavily on women world-wide. The restructuring of the working class, another central feature of the current phase of globalisation - casualisation, informalisation, piece-work, and massive retrenchments - have all impacted unequally on women workers. Capitalist "globalisation" and the breaking down of national barriers has also seen an escalation of globalised criminal activity, some of which impacts very directly and dramatically on poor women (the international sex trade, the trafficking in girl-children).
Capitalist "globalisation" has, accordingly, been associated with growing inequalities both within and between countries.
It is critical to understand that BOTH sides of "capitalist" globalisation - the dramatic and
progressive development of the forces of production ("informationalism"), and the often barbaric widening
of inequality, deepening poverty and oppression - exist in a dialectical relationship. Both aspects are
inter-linked and integral to the same capitalist process. The negative dimension of "globalisation" is
not accidental, or the result of "oversight", or merely of "market failure" in an otherwise crisis-free
process. Both the rapid development of the forces of production and the deepening of global inequality and
misery have their roots in the SAME systemic capitalist crisis.
Given the sheer dominance of the global capitalist system, and given our own economy's relatively small size, and the extensive dependence of our economy on trade, we cannot aspire to simply avoid, or seal ourselves off from "globalisation". However, given the systemic, crisis-ridden nature of capitalist "globalisation", we cannot aspire simply to "align ourselves with its neo-liberal agenda" and then hope to prosper.
It is for these reasons that, as the SACP, we have argued that, as much as possible, we need to pursue strategies that simultaneously engage with, and disengage from the logic of capitalist "globalisation". We need to engage with "globalisation" in so far as it concerns technological development, raising the capacity of our people and productive enterprises to utilize informational technology, to increase access to knowledge, and thereby raise productivity and skills. But we need to disengage, as much as possible, from the logic of capitalist "globalisation" when it comes to issues associated with its polarizing and marginalizing tendencies.
No to capitalist "globalisation", yes to the globalisation of solidarity
In the preceding sections, we have outlined the key features of the present stage of world capitalist development, and we have analysed it as a stage of imperialism that might be referred to as capitalist "globalisation".
However, our contemporary reality has also seen increasing possibilities for, and the actual affirmation and re-affirmation of new and old forms of global solidarity. These trends towards global solidarity, which were pioneered by the working class, and the trade union and international communist movements in an earlier period, are the result of many struggles, campaigns and initiatives.
Ironically, but as in earlier periods, it is often the infrastructural developments of capitalist-driven "globalisation" (the electronic media, e-mail and the internet) that facilitate the progressive exchange of perspectives, and the co-ordination and popularisation of struggles for global solidarity. Likewise, and again ironically, it is the barbarism of the very same globalising capitalist world system that spurs millions of people around the world into action:
- For peace and against militarisation and imperialist unilateralism,
- For development and the abolition of the debt burden,
- For the extension of affordable and sustainable basic services to all, and against the privatisation,
- For the emancipation of women and against their intensified oppression, and
- For sustainable development and against the profit-driven destruction of our environment
to name just some of the most prominent areas of struggle for global solidarity.
In the context of these realities, the SACP will continue to interact with the widest range of progressive forces, both domestic, regional, African and international. We have a particular responsibility towards, and an important resource in, the continued existence, on all continents, of a great variety of Communist, Left and Worker Parties. The SACP will continue to engage in numerous multilateral and bilateral engagements with these fraternal parties. The SACP will continue to share analyses and experience, and seek to develop and advance common programmes and projects with these fraternal forces, while respecting each others'unique national experience and characteristics.
In particular, the SACP will engage more resolutely than in the recent past with left parties and groups within our region and continent, particularly in the context of developing common perspectives and programmes to address the systemic underdevelopment of our region and continent.
The SACP will not confine its international work to fraternal parties. The SACP in its own right, and as part of the broader ANC-alliance, has many dynamic contacts with a wide range of progressive governments, multi-lateral institutions, social movements, trade unions, and NGOs. We will deepen these contacts, and we will seek to learn from the widest range of progressive global currents. We will also seek, in the course of this work, to build global solidarity on a firm anti-imperialist basis.
One major initiative that opens up potential for pursuing many of these international responsibilities is the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
|
