The “new world order”, capitalist classes and imperialism

The “New World Order” was “established” as a common “order” of the capital which the capitalist classes and the imperialist countries had imposed in cooperation on the working, toiling classes and the oppressed nations. On the other hand, the US imperialism, due to its role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and its political, economic and military power, considered this “new order” “established” also as an order of the “US Empire” where other major powers submitted unconditionally to the “emperor” as “privileged vassals”. But as could be seen easily, these two facts were not “ruling out” one another: indeed, the established “new order” was an “order” of both the advanced, developed countries as well as of the “US Empire” sitting at the top “with no rivals”.

Indeed, Russia was “contained” in the G-7, turning it into G-8; the WTO, IMF and WB were renewed as the organs of declaration and application of the decisions taken by this group of Gs. However, as is known, the steps taken were not found adequate. The plans for “globalisation” were imposed, as though they were supposed to be sanctified, with primarily the former Eastern countries, on the backward, dependent countries and peoples as “laws to be conformed to”; and the most needed political-military agreements required for this “new order” were made in a way that would not cause problems. What was essentially relevant in terms of the course of events in the world was the achievement in basing “the task of preserving, ‘with legitimacy’, the agreements made, the laws and the order” on “the international coalition” and the institutions such as UN-NATO which were “supplied with a new concept”. There was nothing incomprehensible in the acceptance “without any objections” of the leadership of USA in this “new order” by all the developed countries because of the current “balance of powers” and this “common legal framework”!

When the Soviet Union collapsed, even though Russia was “included in” the G-8, it was no longer (at least for the time being) a determining economic and financial power. Hence, in the run up to the year 1990, it was possible to talk about three big economic, industrial and financial powers in the world: a) the USA, which had created a protection zone for itself called NAFTA; b) the European Union, which, for the time being, seemed essentially as a common market; c) Japan, which was regarded as the “leader” of east Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, there could be no doubt that these three powers, while trying to protect their market and spheres of influence against other major powers, were positioning themselves as big foci which expanded to all corners1 through cooperation in imposing “liberalisation” to the entirety of the rest of the world outside themselves.

The movements of capital and financial-economic facts showed that the money capital in the hands of these three big industrial forces under a variety of forms had reached very big proportions in the past period, and that it had intensified extremely. This intensification and centralisation of capital, which was felt as from the latter half of the 1980’s and which turned into a wave in the 1990’s, had reached unprecedented levels by the end of that decade. Both the magnitude of operations in financial institutions and other movements of capital headed by the wave of fusions demonstrated this fact clearly. For instance, the capital invested only in purchasing companies, which grew throughout the 1990s, had amounted to 3.3 billion dollars by the year 2000, reaching enormous magnitudes that was even hard to imagine.

The intensification and centralisation of capital had, before all, meant the growth and aggravation of the need and demands of the monopolistic groups. Hence, alongside imbalance and disproportion which became important with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was inevitable for this growing movement of the intensification and centralisation of capital, which was conditioned also by these imbalance and disproportions, to affect a) the relations between these three major powers of the world economy and other powers such as Russia, China, etc., and b) the attitude of primarily the capitalist classes and governments of these countries towards the working class and dependent peoples in an increasingly profound and multi-aspectual way. Indeed, the “manifestation” of the events concerning the two facts2 “arising” in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union increasingly in a more intense form as of mid-1990s was an indication of the course of events.


The re-conquest of the world and inevitable struggle between major powers

Firstly, the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc had made even more conspicuous the disproportion between the financial and economic power of the leading economic, industrial and financial groupings and their share of market and spheres of influence. With more than ¼ of this belonging to Germany; the share of the EU countries in the world production was of great dimensions, exceeding a 1/3 of production. As for the situation of Japan, this was more striking and this country had 17% of the world production. Moreover, in spite of having collapsed, Russia was a country with an expansive industrial-technological basis and a powerful army. Yet, while Russia was admitted to G-8 (the Security Council was sufficient for China) and the “new order” was proclaimed with its “collective character”, the US was imposing its own “resolution” on the entirety of “the world problems” and in the re-appropriation of the markets and spheres of influence, these major powers were not being granted “a real say” with a practical meaning beyond the formalities.

Secondly, the development of economies was uneven and was advancing with change of directions. Also, just as economic organisation and customs were different in each country; the economies were being influenced in different ways by the struggles in both the home and foreign markets. On the other hand, despite being surrounded by its general conditions, it was normal or even a rule for the groups of capital and monopolies which sooner or later imposed their own position to their economies to respond to the already unevenly and unequally3 developing movements of capital (intensification and centralisation) with different points of view and plans and to obtain different and uneven results. Indeed, due to reasons such as the rise and advancement of the Japanese and the EU economies against the US economy;4 and the increasing influence of non-economic factors in economies, the stimulation within US circles of capital and US economy experienced in the later period could easily be identified once the previous decades and recent years were considered.5 As for the changes induced by the same factors of inequality within the British and Russian economies, there was no need to mention these. It was evident that the inequality of economic development and the change occurring because of this reason in the positions of economic powers was an absolute necessity.

It was inevitable for these two facts: a) the disproportion between the economic forces, and the market and sphere of influence of the major groupings; b) the inequality between these economies and the strengths, growths and developments of the groups connected to them6 to yield results that would overturn the course of the world to the contrary. In short, it was impossible for the world to be an “island of justice and peace” and for the major economic powers to remain “conciliated” voluntarily or involuntarily. And indeed, besides the transition of these attacks against the workers and peoples of the world into a wave, these two facts have been the basis of the surfacing progressively of a struggle again with two sides: the competition and struggles taken up a) for the monopolistic capitalist groupings to eliminate their rivals out of primarily their own centres and the world market, to seize the entire market; b) for primarily the imperialist countries to expand their sphere of influence, and to gradually dominate the entire world. It was inevitable for the struggles of the monopolistic capitalist groups and major imperialist countries to “re-conquer” the world market and the entire world to be situated as one of the first points in the agenda.

Major powers and the renewal of the struggle for the markets

The collapse and disintegration of the Eastern Bloc had conveyed “a special meaning” for mespecially the US and Germany and the US and German groups of capital. The US monopolies and US government acted over a plan such as forcing the crooked liberal wing of the “differentiating” Russian bourgeoisie into collaboration; capturing the Russian finance institutions and media; reaching high technologies left over from the Soviets; and of course dominating the Russian gas and oil companies and Caucasian-Caspian region. As for the European leader Germany and German monopolies, they had set as their targets, as has been their interest in the past, as the eastern Europe-Moscow line and south-eastern Europe. Besides, this region was “interesting” not only for major powers such as Japan, Britain and France, but even for the capital groups of small countries such as Switzerland.

However, the question was not only that of former “East” but also the re-conquest and the division of the world market and the entire world. The area of this struggle for conquest and division was broader than the former East. The middle and near east, Caucasus - Caspian, Southeast Europe - Balkans, southeast Asia - Pacific, Mexico-Amazon region and sub-Saharan (black) African countries etc. – alongside markets of developed countries, the struggle between monopolistic groups and imperialist countries “unexpectedly” expanded economically and militarily and to every relatively “attractive” region which had importance or would have importance either for today or the future.

The US and primarily the banks, the US monopolies had renewed their relations and reinforced their positions with the “liberalisation campaign” they had set off in mid-1980s in the NAFTA region and in almost all countries of L. America. The US capital groups, while heading even more towards protectionism7 (against the Japanese and the Europeans) in the home market, throughout the 1990s, they concentrated with a “renewed” and “urgent” special attention on Europe, alongside Asia-Pacific-China and Russia, on the Caucasus-Caspian region and especially the Middle East.

On the other hand, the facts demonstrated that from 1990s onward the US capital groups had placed a special importance in reinforcing their positions within Europe. It was such that besides their continuously increasing activities throughout the decade, the investments made by the US capital groups for purchasing companies in the Euro countries from 1999-2000 was in excess of 90 billion dollars. Furthermore, the US had increased its efforts to disseminate the culture of “Americanisation” of Europe in primarily Europe; indeed, this effort also meant controlling a colossal market in rival “centres” ranging from clothing to food to music and cinema.

Even though Japan considered it as its own sphere of influence, the US companies had intensified also in China, south Asia and Pacific countries; and after the 1990s they were going to struggle not only with the Japanese and the British, but also with German and French monopolies who had rushed to these regions with enthusiasm. As for Japan, it aimed, on one hand, to keep China under pressure through agreement8 with the US; and on the other, to expand its presence in China as well as its influence in the Pacific to become the first determining power in the region. The Japanese banks, electronic and automotive monopolies could undoubtedly not suffice with these regionalist goals; and indeed, even though the 1993 crisis had affected the Japanese economy considerably, they renewed their plans, adapted to the conditions, and had conducted a persistent struggle in order to resist in the US, EU and all other markets.9

Despite this and its relatively smaller economy, apart from the US, the country that most actively participated in this “new” struggle in the world in the 1990s was again Germany. Moreover, the German groups of capital did not suffice only with holding the Eastern Europe-Moscow line and expanding into China and south Asia; but they complemented their powerful position in the world market even more in sectors such as automotive, metal, chemical and mechanical manufacturing. In addition, the US, where the German automotive industry had hit the bottom in 1989, was to become a market with German monopolies spreading rapidly and being strengthened progressively.10 Furthermore, they have established relations in the US “backyard” L. American countries, especially in Mexico and Brazil. What is more, is that Germany did not remain content with competition and struggle in the industrial fields where it was powerful: In order to make progress in fields with high technology such as micro electricity, micro biology, space explorations, space technology where the industry was weak, it has utilised all the possibilities of the country and has made every effort to this end,11 including utilising the EU funds and state enforcements (on the monopolies), without any hesitation.

On the other hand, Britain in finance-banking, telecommunication, oil, arms; France, in automotive, electronics sector, made advanced moves. Moreover, the British and French monopolies had refreshed their strategies and embarked on a struggle with extended goals against rival monopolies in the entirety of the world markets. Some capital groups and monopolies which take as basis the above mentioned fields have quickly grown through mergers at home as well as international purchases. In this growth and advancement of the British and French monopolies, what served them as an important advantage was the fact that they made a more “effective” use of their old experiences and their governments’ international relations compared to other monopolies of other European and Asian developed countries.

Monopolistic struggles of the past fifteen years developed in such a way that led to takeovers, mergers and alliances between the capital groups and monopolies of both the same and rival countries in both home and foreign markets. When these struggles are examined more closely it could be observed that: a) the struggle transpiring between capital groups and monopolies over the past fifteen years are not “routine” struggles fought to become a dominant power here or to get a foothold there. On the contrary, these struggles are characterised by the re-conquest and re-division of the world market and they progress through placing new “starting strategies” into the market; b) It is to a large extent with this feature that the struggle for the market between the monopolistic groups, despite the entirety of globalisation decisions and “free trade” laws, has also become a struggle that draws into itself the countries and governments, resorting increasingly more to uneconomic and unlawful schemes and methods.

Even though it is still being defended, the claims of “new world order” such as “free trade”, “peaceful competition”, “development through harmony and sharing” are gradually losing their function and meaning. “Concerns” over “hostile takeovers”; the rising objections on the face of the capture of “important” sectors and enterprises; moreover, the capital groups’ increasing preference of making progress via routes cleared by governments through bribes, special agreements, even with coups and interventions, and the increasingly more fulfilment of the requirements of this preference by governments. Indeed, it is something that could be seen clearly that serious trade disagreements and trade cases are on the rise, and that psychology of “trade wars” has spread all over.

Leaving aside the other things it leads to; one of the most fundamental reasons for the struggle for markets between capitalist groups and monopolies is the fact that the questions concerning the general interest of countries, which are far more important and broader than the current interests of the capital groups and monopolies are increasingly coming to the fore. Even though agreements on “free trade” and “the liberalisation of markets” are still signed, alongside protectionist “measures”, the governments of developed countries have come to be more increasingly engaged with questions of the global interest and spheres of influence of their own countries. Whether or not it will ever leave the agenda12 is a separate question; it is clear that one of the most important reasons as to why these general interests take a far greater place in the agenda and attitude of countries is the course of the struggle between the capital groups and monopolies over the past fifteen years.

The struggle for spheres of influence and the tendency to polarise

The discussions of “status” in the Middle East, disagreements on the spheres of influence in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and questions of interventions in Central Africa have been the instances of manifestation and of the increase of disagreements between big capitalist countries. As for tendencies towards imperialist groupings, they have surfaced with the attack on Iraq in 2003 in a visible form.

The war against Yugoslavia and the division of spheres of influence exercised there, though involuntarily, had given rise to a view concerning the continuation, at least for a period, of the “agreement”13 between the G-8 coalition and the major powers. However, the development did not take place in that direction and in 2001 the world witnessed a new “surprising” manoeuvre of the US: the discussion initiated by the US itself, even though it appeared as a discussion over Iraq, was in fact not so; the US had, in reality, proclaimed a new platform which placed itself over all countries and international institutions; it would keep supporting the UN and “dialogue with friends”; nonetheless, its freedom of movement could not be constrained by any power for any reason!

Acting this way, the US had in fact given up a position that at least formally seemed “equal” with the other major powers, and had taken the decision to use “freely” its power and authority for the benefit of its capital and country, and against capital groups and countries competing with it. For its economic power was not sufficient to stop the rival advanced countries, the idea was to subdue them to its desires and to rule the entire world on its own. And the US had to actively use its non-economic (political-military) powers. However, this could be achieved by not remaining on the “defensive” but only by relocating the struggle to a front of attacks and a war to which the rival countries could not adjust. Indeed, the US did not only suffice with declaring war on Iraq, it actually began the work by proclaiming the “rule of pre-emptive war”, “the right to use nuclear weapons first”, “the star wars-2 project” as though defying all countries.

After occupying Afghanistan and Iraq the US did not wait at all: it proceeded to making military agreements (not considering whether or not they were currently required) with all countries in all the major strategic regions of the world, with primarily the Caucasus and Middle East, from Asia-Pacific to L. America, and to establishing a large number of bases. In fact, the US was repositioning its army on the entire world, and its aim in doing this was, of course, but blockading the regions of raw materials and energy, the transportation and trade routes of energy and regions of military-strategic significance. Moreover the facts have demonstrated that the drives setting motion to the US were those that suggested increasing the repression on the dependent countries, isolating the rival countries from important regions and withholding the advantage to strike the first blow if/when needed.

The US “effort to persuade” other great powers was to a large degree demagogic and formalistic; it essentially acted with an attitude of imposition, compulsion and subjugation. Indeed, the US did not regard its dominance secure and did not consider it particularly sufficient. While trying to subdue other major powers, “to fortify” the pro-American order as a “US empire” that nobody could “reproach” – this is the essence of the line pursued by the US. Accordingly, the US did not suffice merely with declaring plans and repositioning its army: it has centralised technology institutions in a way that increased the influence of the army and had increased its defence budget to an unprecedented level, 400 billion dollars.

The US primarily wanted the EU, which it had supported in the period of struggle against Soviet Union, on its side and had naturally directed the pressures particularly to the countries which were the rulers of this union. Despite this, even though some countries from the EU were on its side, it was not a secret that things were not going particularly well for the US. Leaving aside its tarnished reputation on the part of the peoples, France and Germany (on which the US try to impose its rule) had rejected the US “demands” to participate in the “satellite” and “star wars-2” and have declared their own “satellite programme” by getting China on board too. Moreover, they have expended all efforts in their disposal in order not leave the “independent EU army”14 on paper and to actualise it and had used every question arising as an opportunity.

It was a fact that the EU was in fact the greatest economic power in opposition to the US. On the other hand, due to its democracy, social appearance and relations with “leading” countries, in contrast to the US, the EU also seemed as a more “attractive” grouping. Despite this, even though it had the appearance of being “a political union” on the face of the working class and the peoples, when questions such as foreign policy, national defence and international security came to the fore on the agenda, the EU usually split and lost its appearance of being “a political union”.15 On the other hand, the US had established some power within the EU on the parts of some countries and Britain who sought “security” against the possible moves of Germany, and though not yet overtly, pursues a line of dividing it. In these circumstances, big powers such as Germany, France and (of necessity) Britain are still in favour of the existence of EU despite its current status and it seems as though the EU process, despite the increase of its internal disagreements, conflicts and insolubilities and the becoming worthless of its Constitution, will last as long the foreseeable period and undoubtedly so long as it is useful for its major powers.

On the other hand, Germany and France seem as the main owners of the EU. These two countries have found the way of surpassing Britain, which seeks its fundamental interests in the beyond-Atlantic alliance and which acts as “the US within the EU”, and try to “make do” with it; however, in their disagreements with the US, they have almost made a “habit” of allying with Russia as a “tripartite” grouping.16 Moreover, these countries, together with Russia, with which they are in opposition concerning a number of issues in Eastern Europe, had even exhibited the “audacity” to oppose the attack on Iraq and to legalise their relations with countries declared as “rogue states” by the US.

The declaration that the new military transport and fighter planes will begin to fly from 2010; the efforts for the unification as a single monopoly and common consortium of the military dockyards in France and Germany; being in arms manufacturing of Britain with 11 of its 20 most powerful companies under the protection of the government (and seeking also cooperation with US monopolies): all these facts, as well as indicating a new move for militarization in the EU countries, also demonstrate the efforts of Germany and France to transform the EU and no doubt themselves and the community of EU countries they organised around themselves into an independent military power. There is nothing that is not understandable in the conduct of these two countries with drives to dominate continental Europe and EU, establishing bases in strategic regions, and to transform it into a political and (land, space-air and sea) military power that will fight for hegemony across the world against the US.

Japan, as the other big economic power, seems as the country that stands the most “distant” to the fights and disagreements emerging outside of its region. Despite this, as well as the increasingly rising attention of Japan to events outside of its region, this country’s interest in armament has also been growing. Furthermore, the facts indicate that Russia and China do not particularly submit to the impositions of the US: Russia, while trying to protect its interests in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Middle East against the Western alliance, has recovered its economy, centralised its technological research and arms manufacturing and proceeded to reorganising its army through modernisation. As for China, it has been struggling to prevent itself from being looted, to take advantage of the conjecture and also to become an alternative against the US-Japanese alliance in the region.17 Moreover, these countries,18 even though they do not constitute a great economic power today (despite their industrial-technologic potentials) are not keeping distant from long range rockets and nuclear tests.

What could be seen from what has been transpiring is that the US, with its “struggle” throughout the 2000s, is more distant today from the most of what it wanted to achieve against other big groupings and powers: it could be observed that the “Greater Middle East Project” which assumes complete dominance over eastern Mediterranean including north Africa, the Islamic world and the oils of Middle East, and which has set as a target Syria and especially Iran, did not “amount” to very much. As well as not wanting Iran to become a nuclear power, Germany, France, Russia and even China (despite attempting to subdue even more by capitalising on the situation) have rejected to leave Iran and the region to the whim of the USA. Moreover, even the “ally” Britain seems not wanting US domination in the eastern Mediterranean and Iran.

On the other hand, while Germany placed its relations of “energy” and transport affairs (energy production and transport route agreement) with Russia on an unmediated and direct basis; Russia, by coming to “agreements” with countries surrounding the Caspian and “the Shanghai Quintet”, is not evading military manoeuvres around US bases in Asia. China now has a far clearer attitude, forming relations with almost every country distancing from the US, making oil agreements with many countries such as Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Sudan, etc. Moreover, France, with its “fight” against US expansion in Africa, has already established an “EU African Intervention Unit” with Britain and Germany. As for the US, it has become, even if not on a general scale, “alienated” in many important issues.

There is no need to go on listing these; as a conclusion, these facts yield the following result: the facts which will cause the downfall of “the new world order” are growing in all fields. Leaving aside the intervention in important regions of the world, occupations and coups, on the face of conduct and attempts of the major powers to one another, facts such as their embarking to ally with other major powers; the escalation of defence budgets and arms manufacturing; the modernisation of armies and their repositioning are never accountable in terms of other reasons. Indeed, the US threatens, even though “unofficially”, any country which dare to rise its military power on par with the US with war; and this emphasizes the course of events in the world.

In short, imperialist powers which are “close” to one another, are further away from one another then compared to fifteen years ago, even though they are not completely broken away (a complete break away today is not favoured by the US either) as yet. Furthermore, the proportions of power are on the change and the demands of capitalist classes are mutually increasing. The facts demonstrate that the major countries will not remain only within this “distancing” and restricted “break away”, and that on the contrary, they will advance far more the tendencies to position themselves within rival-hostile poles.

The following is beyond possibility: whatever fronts the US controls, the international institutions such as UN, NATO, EU, WTO and IMF, which hold together the current major powers of the world, are condemned to disintegration, dissolution19 and collapse. It is inevitable for the pro-American “new world order” which depends also on the “functionality” of these institutions to collapse as the result of a new polarisation of imperialist quality that will emerge through a series of disagreement, struggle and regional wars which will leave functionless and dissolve the entirety of these institutions. Indeed, even though the process of internationalisation still continues; the differentiating and antagonising interests of the major capitalist countries drive them inevitably to opposing poles and to competition and struggle with one another.

Despite all this, it is not surprising that the major powers of capitalism are not as yet organised within counter posing poles or that they have not as yet come against one another. This obviously could not take place just yet: other major advanced countries opposite the US, the ruler of the order, have not been sufficiently strengthened and the disagreements between monopolies have not sufficiently sharpened. Besides, the acceleration of uneven development; the causing of this in the speeding up of the course of events and its increasingly imposing of getting organised within hostile blocs to the capitalist countries is inevitable.


It is essential to underline the following facts which accord also with the platform the US proclaimed in 2001 where it declared that it would regard as enemy every country that is “not on its side”: a) the struggle, over destructive and hostile fronts, between the monopolistic groups and imperialist countries for markets and spheres of influence had become acute; and b) a fundamental turning point in the expansion of this sharpening struggle into a direct struggle for the re-appropriation of the entire world between great imperialist forces had been surpassed. The relation between and the opposite positions of the major powers has left behind a fundamental turn. Though the governments change, as right or left, the situation and positions of these countries will no longer “make a comeback”.

In fact, the imperialist countries have, for some time, set their historical interest and integral stately goals before themselves and the development and the course towards new polarisations is gradually accelerating. To state that this is the shape-up of the political-military polarisation of the future would no doubt be early and inaccurate: Despite this, the appearance of “the trio” of Germany-France-Russia, the “enemies” of the previous century, is still interesting in opposition to the grouping of US-Britain (which Japan currently seems to be supporting, at least partially). It is impossible today to estimate how this interesting fact will develop or what direction it will take. However, it could be anticipated that the facts have been following in the direction of the collapse of “the unipolar order” and the counter-positioning of the imperialist blocs. This undoubtedly means the embarking of the major powers of capital to a direct struggle to re-appropriate the world, and the growing threat of general war.


The attacks of the capital and the movement of the working class and oppressed nations

The wave of “liberalisation” in the 1980s, evoked with the names of Reagan and Thatcher, had resulted in the capital taking further steps in its attacks in the economic and social fields in the US and Britain, paving the way to the generalisation of these attacks in the following period. Indeed, the capitalist classes of these countries and the “democratic” and “labour” governments of the post Reagan-Thatcher era had utilised more “successfully and effectively” the conditions established with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc and the demagogies pertaining to the “establishment” of “the new world order”: “the reform period” was carried out uninterruptedly and “persistently” in countries such as the US and Britain.

Leaving aside the further steps taken in health and pension “reforms” and the complete marketisation of education, the work-life had been the most important field which could not evade “reforms” in these countries, and its results were to be seen shortly. The facts were evident: in 1996, 34 million workers in the US were working “partially-halved-flexibly”. Further, these forms of employment; had already incorporated 43% of the workers in Britain and 50% of the workers in the Netherlands. While the working week was reduced to 35 hours in Europe; the workers in the US, which was the most advanced in terms of productivity in the world, were working a month more in a year (164 hours) compared to twenty years ago. As for Japan, it had already owed its reputation to being “the motherland” of “deregulation” and “quality chambers”.

Despite this, the events in continental Europe had followed a different course to the one in the Anglo-Saxon countries and Japan. Although it suffered losses on the face of the attacks of the capital, the working class movement was able to force the agreement of “35 hour working week” in 1985 over continental Europe despite the compromises in its application. The historical accumulation and traditions of the working class movement in Europe were different: despite the entirety of devastation generated amongst the workers by the peaking ideological offensives and feeling of a heavy defeat; the capitalist classes had not particularly dared to take immediately into agenda and put into application the “reforms” in the economic and social fields in these countries. It was for this reason that there was a need for “consistent grounds” and “grounds which could be regarded legitimate” to be found only because of the 1994 crisis. Indeed, in its general form, the offensive of the capital can be put on the agenda in developed European countries by appeal only to “the necessities of the crisis”.

It was understandable that the European capitalist classes acted “cautiously”. In fact, this “caution” was not without reason: the workers’ movement erupting in France in 1995 had resonated all over Europe, especially in Italy, and had repealed this first trial of attacks after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet due to crisis, stagnation, the growth in the intensification of capital and (more importantly) the advantageous positions of the Anglo-Saxon countries etc, none of the capitalist classes and countries in the Continent could surrender to and stand this repealing. Besides, as the monopolies grew, so did their demands; hence the renewal, generalisation and expansion of the attacks were necessary not only in Europe but also in the Anglo-Saxon countries and Japan. On the other hand, following the “participation” of the former “East”, the “conditions of competition”, in which the cost of work force and wages would begin to descend in the dependent and accordingly in the advanced countries, was formed thoroughly on the international scale: the “cost” of workforce was, for instance, 28 cents in China; as for Mexico and Romania, it was 1.50 dollars; the orientation of monopolistic groups towards China, Mexico and Romania was an inevitable rule of the “competition” forming the foundation of “economic dynamism”!

Besides, the expansion and generalisation in the offensive could not remain as an expansion and generalisation aiming only the working classes. It was “necessary” to attach the dependent countries which were forced into “liberalisation programmes” and which were “advanced” in this direction in a progressively accelerating way, to an intensified and secured new “plan”. It was necessary for “structural transformation” programmes refined of all kinds of “social” and “national” influence; the complete adoption of these programmes and the “supremacy” of agreements of the kind of MAI-MIGA as the assurance of their application and international law and courts not only in industrial, commercial and financial sectors but also in agricultural sections, to become the “highest law” for these countries from now on!

To underline it once again: in spite of repealing the attacks, the year of 1995 had not eliminated the attacks; indeed, the year of 1996 would renew, generalise and once again declare these from a broad front. The demands of the capital and the way the US wanted to shape the world have been known for long. Although they were within the disagreements of a new struggle for conquest and re-appropriation; there was no hindrance in the way of the three economic-financial powers of the world and G-8 countries (as an expression and prerequisite of this new struggle of re-conquest and re-appropriation) to agree from a far advanced front for attacks towards the working class and peoples of dependent countries and for the “new economic shaping up” of the world. Undoubtedly, it was not a coincidence that the first summit of the WTO had been convened within the same year (1996).

The scope and the general characteristics of the attacks

In terms of the attacks in the economic and social fields what needed to be emphasised was this: it was quite “natural” that the dependent countries and their workers and peoples were to be apportioned with the initial and the heaviest part of the burdens of these attacks in the economic and social fields, which were renewed and coordinated on an international scale in 1996, as was also seen following the 1993 crisis.1 The balances of power were constituted, completely and in an unprecedented way, in favour of the monopolies and the developed countries. It was not incomprehensible or unforeseeable that the scope of attacks was expanded (limitlessly) in “accordance” with these new power relations, with the requirements of the new conquest and re-appropriation struggle of the capital and imperialism, and with the depths of the illusions of the peoples of dependent countries.

Consequently, what was demanded from these countries could no longer be limited to the “adjustment” of their finances and the “balancing” of their budgets and foreign trades. Most destructive actions such as using the privatisations as an instrument of destroying and capturing the most fundamental “national-public” industrial and financial institutions of these countries; using the elimination of agricultural subsidies2 as an instrument of capturing the agricultural lands, patenting the agricultural products3 and the running of agriculture by international monopolies; using the education, health and pension “reforms” as an instrument of opening completely the public affairs to “the market” were to form the essence of the bill apportioned to these countries. But this was not all: international capital and monopolistic groups were also acting with a view to assimilate also the important formerly collaborating companies of these countries, and forming a new “type of collaborator” through which the collaborating classes would become a group of ordinary servants.

What was demanded of the dependent countries was, in fact, a voluntary acceptation of becoming an “economic or financial colony”4 that would turn their independence into not only a formal thing but also a dry crust. The facts demonstrate clearly: in spite of making loan and interest payments in increasing proportions; and constantly increasing their “exports” to developed countries; the debts of these countries have been getting progressively heavier5 and they are not able to save their foreign trade from “crisis inducing” deficits in any way. Either to be shaken and knocked down by frequently occurring crises or to surrender to the “IMF programmes”, an unprecedented kind of banditry; this has been declared as an “inevitable destiny with no alternatives” for the dependent countries.

Capitalist monopolies and developed countries do not particularly undertake huge costs or any “risks” such as excessive capital investments while suffocating these backward countries. Direct capital investments made to these countries, including the transfer of labour intensive sectors, is so small in comparison to the enormous magnitude of capital flowing into developed countries that it is not worth mentioning. For instance, while this capital increased three-fold between the years of 1990 and 1995, it amounted only and solely to 84 billion dollars. On the other hand, this capital is taken to these countries not for the purpose of “benefiting” them but with the drive for profit, and prefers the countries where it will acquire this profit maximally and securely. And indeed, it is general knowledge that more than 70% of the capital exported to backward and dependent countries goes to China and other Asian countries; that the portion of Africa amounted to only 2% in 2003, when its volume grew relatively; that in every place it enters, it is invested mostly in “businesses” of stock market, state bonds and purchases.

It is not an exaggeration to state that these countries are in a new process of enslavement, and the majority of them have already gone far enough in this path. Almost all of these countries, in the last fifteen to twenty years have lost a half or perhaps more of their “national” and “public” wealth. And leaving aside growth or development; wherever one chooses to look at it from, the process experienced by these countries is a form of and a rapid (economic-financial) colonisation process. A number of black African countries have been condemned to destruction as if revenge was being taken out of their struggles against and independences from colonialism, and they have been opened to the markets in the broadest terms possible. Besides this, even the countries like the south Asian countries, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Turkey which were presented as the most “developed” and “growing” of the dependent countries are today in a worse position. Indeed, the “growing” economies and possibilities6 in these countries are in fact those of the developed countries because they are a result of the export capital seizing their economies through small investments.

On the other hand, the situation of the workers of these countries is not particularly different from that of their countries. The social rights, the cost of work force and wages in these places are weak and far lower in comparison to developed countries. Despite this, workers and labourers in these types of countries still have some important gains. As a result both the international gains of the working class and the struggles of the labourers of these countries, a series of economic, social and democratic fronts were captured in these places. However, the latest campaign of attacks had been seriously threatening the work life in these places as well as these countries themselves for some time. Indeed, alongside the rapidly increasing greed of the collaborating capital, the international bourgeoisie have already imposed the amendment of the newly passed employment and work laws; and the opening of the “return route” of the economic and social rights towards the most backward countries. This “return” will also be a “return” that will function as an active weapon the capital will use in the success of the attacks in the metropol countries.

On the other hand, the attacks not only have targeted the peoples and the workers of the dependent countries but also the workers of the developed countries, and are comprehensive attacks also for them. This has been on the agenda more or less for a decade: the elimination of job security and safety regulations; the deregulation of the system of workday and wages; the opening of health insurance to the market by refinement from “contributions”; the minimisation of unemployment “allowances”; the raising of the retirement age in places where it was already high; the gradual reduction of the contracts to formalities without jurisdiction; consequently, the reduction of the cost of workforce have already been imposed on workers in these countries. Among the visible part of the offensive of the capital are the demand for 50-hour working week (accompanied with deregulation in the main), the right to get workers to work 73 every week,7 the complete removal of contribution shares of institutional taxes and insurance and the unlimited right to “sack” put forward by the representatives of the German capital and followed by other countries. And the fact of the matter is that the attack directed at the workers also in these developed countries does not correspond in any way with any economic or social gained rights even if it is in the form of crumbles.

The complete and general purge of the class and national gains achieved by the struggle of the workers against capitalism for the last hundred and fifty years, and the struggle of the peoples against imperialism for the last one hundred years. In other words, what is seen is a form of throwing back of8 the working class to the period before the Chartist movement and the Lyon uprising; and of the oppressed nations to the period and conditions of a (economic) colony where the oppressed nations were not as yet a nation and, even only if in the political sense, were not as yet an independent country. Unless other factors disrupt or impede, it is an inevitable threat that the capital and imperialism will expand its offensive boundlessly against the workers and oppressed nations.

The struggle and resistance of the working class and the peoples

At a time when the attacks of the capital took the form of a wave the working class had “hit bottom” morally and organisationally both in individual countries as well as on the world scale. As for the peoples of the dependent countries, and nations and national minorities living under oppression in these countries, they had been swayed by the “hopes” of the fairytales of “globalisation” and “new order”; and they were under an “illusion” of competing with the neighbouring countries and “depending on” imperialism.

Despite this, contrary to goals aimed with the general atmosphere rendered dominant over the world, in all countries, the labouring masses, especially the working class, did not excessively remain quiet against the attacks of the capital. On the other hand, the “hope” the dependent countries and their peoples had from “globalisation” and “new world order” had been replaced progressively by disappointment. A new awakening of the peoples of the dependent countries and minority nations and national minorities before imperialism, a new tendency for solidarity and struggle: this was one of the things indicated by the facts too.

In terms of the struggle of the world working class and peoples, 1995 was a turning point to a great extent. Indeed, leaving aside the slowing down of the initial pace of the attacks, the 1995 resistance of the French workers was a great resistance that paved the way to greater confidence of the working class, as well as the encouragement of the oppressed and the exploited outside of workers. On the other hand, this “unexpected” action by the French workers, together with the Chiapas insurrection in Mexico, had also been one of the events that presented an alternative throughout the world to the hopelessness amongst the intellectuals.

With primarily the acts of resistance that led to the downfall of the government in Italy, the struggles that emerged in the European countries during 1995-96; the strikes of the metal and transport workers in the US and the mine workers in Russia which erupted at the end of the 1990s, receiving worldwide mention; the strikes and acts of resistance which, after being observed in some form in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Britain and in some other countries, repealed the government that it was in a conflict in France (2006) and which indicated a revitalisation experienced in mid-2000s in Europe… Even though the capital kept developing; these workers’ and students’ movements in developed big countries had rendered themselves acknowledged as the most important factors in the partial withdrawal and limitation of these worldwide attacks.

As for the backward and dependent countries, the workers’ movement (naturally after the collapse of Soviet Union) in some countries had, as a result of living conditions and necessities, emerged in an earlier period (1989-90 and 1994-95) in comparison to developed countries. One of the basic features of the workers’ movement in these countries was that this movement acquired its ground and origins in devastations caused by the crises accelerated either due to the IMF programmes or impositions from outside, and that it developed together with and as a driving part of the popular movements against the governments and impositions of international institutions. Alongside great strikes and acts of resistance of workers, it was extremely natural for the struggle against the attacks of the capital and governments in these dependent countries to develop by generating idiosyncratic compositions.

Stretching from N. Korea to Mexico, from Brazil to India, from Indonesia to Turkey, Argentina and Colombia, struggles and acts of resistance consisting of a large number of big strikes, general strikes and demonstrations, which from time to time came into the agenda in these countries and played a role in the change of direction of the political tendencies among the masses; popular movements in Indonesia, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Benin, Burkina Faso (…) and lastly in Bolivia and Nepal, evolving from big strikes and demonstrations into insurrections and uprisings which toppled governments... Despite their development through stagnations and declines, the struggles in these countries have also emerged as struggles which accentuate the illegal forms of the movement as well as the increasing power and influence of the working class.

The struggles against the economic and social attacks, also on the world scale, have been increasingly orientated towards the governments and at the times overtly targeted the governments; indeed, to a certain extent and at times to a large extent, politics9 has been a basic feature of these actions. Moreover, the political influence and direction in the world workers’ and popular movement is not restricted only with the political influence and direction in these actions: The reignited Palestinian uprising; the fight against the occupation in Iraq; acts of resistance experienced in central African countries against various foreign interventions; the uprising of the Venezuelan people against the US coup; the once again revitalising insurrection of the oppressed peoples such as the Kurdish, Chiapas and the Tamil people; other struggles developing throughout the dependent countries generally against the political intervention and impositions of the imperialists and which takes as its origin the political questions… Movements against the EU Constitution in Europe and against Bush in the US and peace actions going through a renewal and emerging across the world, primarily in the developed countries… These struggles, together with these actions of varying sizes, and which remains local (concerning the question of democracy) observed almost everywhere, have been emphasising the political effect and direction in the movements of the working class and the peoples and have been presenting these qualities.

As far as imperialism and national oppression is concerned, what should not be disregarded is this: although the resistance and struggles against the national oppression and imperialist interventions in dependent countries are still weak, it could be asserted that they are an indication of a “come back” in the actions of these peoples (in tandem with popular movement against the IMF) which are under oppression and in need of freedom. Nonetheless, it is more interesting that the peoples of developed countries protest the US attack on Iraq in their hundreds of thousands and millions. Indeed, this movement was a new step in terms of the peoples of dependent countries to turn their attention to the workers of the advanced (but of course firstly their own) countries. It has also made a serious contribution to the development of interest in questions such as imperialist intervention and war across these countries.

To sum up, in the period left behind, the struggle of the working class, toiling masses and the people of dependent countries had followed a course parallel to the development of attacks and has been shaped as the amalgamation of two “different” movements which emerge out of two distinct fields and which are directly related to one another: a) the struggles of workers and labourers (trade union) which emerge as a result of the attacks in the social and economic field; and b) popular movements, national acts of resistance and peace activities coming to fore on the agenda in order to defend freedom, independence and peace against national oppression, imperialist intervention and wars.

In the fifteen years left behind, the most fundamental thing demonstrated by these struggles developing in two directions within the “new order”, namely the economic and social attacks on the one hand, and imperialist intervention, wars and occupations on the other, was the following: contrary to what was claimed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc the world had not become an “island of peace” of the individuals, classes and peoples. Nor would it remain to be an arena of the fights of the capitalist groups and imperialists and their attacks towards the working class and the peoples. Indeed, one of the important facts characterising it was the arduously progressing struggles and acts of resistance by the world working class and the peoples of dependent countries against the capital and imperialism.


The capitalist classes and major developed countries had as though condemned themselves to perpetuating and broadening their attacks against the working class and peoples of dependent countries. Yet, the last fifteen years has shown that the attacks have also been acquiring features which provoke the mobilisation of the masses, no matter what their current situation was. It is inevitable for the expanding attacks to condemn the capitalist classes to far greater difficulties.

And indeed, the parties of the capital, whether on the right or left, have been losing credibility in all countries, both developed and backward. Anti-intervention, anti-occupation and anti-American sentiments are spreading not only in the Islamic world but also amongst the peoples of developed countries and L. America, Africa and some countries of Asia, especially in India. On the other hand, the working class movement, as seen in the last period in France, Italy and idiosyncratically in Britain, through heading towards also to confrontations with the employers and governments, has been developing by following its natural course, despite presenting stagnations, in all developed and backward countries. As for the youth and student youth, it is experiencing a new revitalisation, manifestations of which can be seen in France, Germany and some countries of Latin America. Furthermopre, in L. America and black Africa; the struggle against imperialist intervention and reactions in a number of countries and regions, has become a massive popular movement, keeping the governments under pressure. Moreover, as is the case in countries such as Brazil, Mexico, India and Turkey, along the workers’ movement in yet more countries, peasants struggles of different categories are also currently on the agenda.

It is a fact that no matter which path and process their struggle takes and develops, the working class, toiling masses and peoples of dependent countries are provoked by the capital and imperialism itself and are being led to struggles of the kind that will break its chains. The working class and popular movements will no doubt experience a number of diversions and perhaps will face defeats that will lead to heavy destructions in many areas. However, it is unpreventable for the workers and popular movements to transcend their current line, to expand their path with consciousness and to advance.

Despite this, where and how the crises will develop; what course the attacks will follow in different countries; to what extent and from which routes the aspects of explosion will accumulate; where and how the uprising will emerge; just as these cannot be predetermined, no “advanced” estimations could be made about whether it will be surrendered or resisted in the first attacks. What is essential is the break away of the workers from the capital and the peoples from imperialism is unpreventable; this fact, despite being laborious, will render its acknowledgment through advancing struggles and acts of resistance.


“The New World Order: the Order of the Capital”

As seen by the events of the past fifteen years, all the arguments of the “new world order” and all the claims of its advocates about this order are in a state of bankruptcy: a) the world of the capital is in a process of repositioning themselves in the form of groupings contesting one another and as centres different from the previous period; b) the “differences” between the dominant classes and countries and the working class and the peoples of the dependent countries representing the oppressed and the exploited manifest themselves in destructive and antagonistic contradictions and take a confrontational state. Just as these two facts and the events finding their origin in them do not leave any room for the concerning theory and theses of the “new order”, there is no one particularly left to defend them aloud either.

These two facts, which cannot be explained in any other way, also imply the distinctive features of the “new order” and what is taking place in its bosom. It is such that, it is completely impossible to find the smallest of indications that would more or less imply the typical characteristics contradictions of this “order”.

One of the things underlined by what has been happening in the world is that the “impenetrable ties” between the monopolies and political reaction and imperialism have once again become noticeable and apparent before all eyes. Even though such an evaluation was dominant initially, the view that the events concerning the reaction and imperialism were “temporary” and caused by the “mistakes” of Bush and some other “leaders” does not seem particularly persuasive nowadays. Indeed, the fact that reaction and imperialism, which were said to have “ended by now”, has entered into the life of the entire earth “once again” at a time when the campaign for “peace, freedom and democracy” was at its zenith has also generated a powerful tremor leading to a new awakening.

A new intensification of political reaction and imperialism was a necessity. In conditions where the struggle and rivalry between capitalist groups and the major powers of imperialism broadened and the exploitation of the working class and the peoples of the dependent countries intensified, neither “justice, freedom” etc. could be developed nor could there ever be a mention of voluntary or involuntary “harmony”, “peace” and “democracy” between classes or countries. Consequently, it was so natural and inevitable that, in parallel with the generalised attacks, the broadening workers’ and popular movements across the world was to be followed by the intensification in the political-national repression.

This naturalness and inevitability was not inapprehensible: in order for the intensifying oppression and brutality to gain acceptability on the part of the working class and the peoples of the world it was necessary: a) to turn “democracy”, “freedom” and “peace” upside down, and b) to intensify reaction and violence and consider them “ordinary” in daily life. Otherwise, the deception of the workers and the peoples and their subordination could in no way be achieved!

Indeed the events, following the declaration of the “new order”, not leaving much time for “peace, accord and freedom”, accelerated their course in the direction of violence. Even though the 1991 attack on Iraq and the war against Yugoslavia were presented as “the necessary solution to issues left over from communism”, the “right to intervene” of the major powers in countries which did not surrender or were “incongruous” had become a general and “legitimised” “right”. As for the generalisation of reaction and violence in the entirety of the world; for the broadening of the grounds, for the spread of the psychology, for the “renewal” of the means and apparatus, the terror event of 11 September 2001 sufficed.

It was outside of the bounds of possibility not to capitalise on this action of an “Islamic” terror organisation, which was organised by the US in the past, into an “occasion” for the expansion and generalisation of the offensive of imperialism and the reactions against the working class, labourers and the dependent peoples into the political arena: events such as the provocation of religions, the placing of certain major regions of the world under fire and the proclamation of certain countries as rogue states, had been taken as the first steps of the intensification of the violence and reaction of imperialism. This was followed by the condemnation of the backward and dependent countries as the “source of terrorism” and as a “threat”, and the declaration of the “pre-emptive war” doctrine. More importantly, democracy, “our freedom and democracy” was under threat of terrorism and thus emerged the question of “internal security”. To the same extent “pre-emptive war” was required and indispensable for the security of the world, the measures of “internal security” were necessary for “western civilisation” and the “democracies” in the advanced countries!

The following was an undeniable reality: for the capitalist classes and major imperialist powers, the struggle expended “against terrorism” was not a temporary struggle that was restricted with the “resolution” of such current issues. As seen more clearly during the last fifteen years, this struggle of capital and imperialism was a broadly comprehensive, multi-aspectual and many-sided struggle: a) against the working class internally; b) against the backward and dependent nations externally; c) against the rival monopoly and countries internally, externally and across the world! The world of capital and the imperialist countries, despite being in “unity” against the first two, are in the midst of a tripartite struggle that has been following a complex course.

On the other hand, just as this struggle will not be constrained within solely “peaceful” forms, contrary to the claims of many circles, it would not even remain on the level of “acceptable class or national rivalry or struggle within the system”. When the possibilities for “compromise” and “democratic” submission are “exhausted”, the capitalist world and especially major imperialist countries knew that they will only and solely enforce their supremacy over both the workers and dependent nations, and also the rival powers, through blatant brutality and force. Moreover, the conflict and struggles emerging both in individual countries and also on a world scale had already, for some time, reached the level where they imposed the perfection and “renewal” of all the institutions and means of political repression, whether national or class, in accordance with the course of events.

Indeed the facts clearly demonstrated the institutional positions and the breakthrough achieved by the political reaction and violence: the “rentier essence” of the states in the developed countries had never before imposed itself as strongly as this. Despite its extreme importance, the issue here was not only the removal of (real) economic and financial administration organs such as central banks, rules of market and rivalry, stock exchanges out of the area of authority of the governments and assemblies that came to power through elections. The issue was a more vital one: the turning of the democracies upside-down, even though they were of a bourgeois kind; and the political reaction and aggression of capital and imperialism getting intensified, preparing its grounds, means and organs and becoming a current (again): the escalation of intensified police states across the world; the transformation of liberal parliamentarism into lairs from which the fascist currents feed and develop and through which their participation into parliaments is legitimised; the increasing militarization of economies also in the developed countries and the reinvigoration of the militarist state!

The “renewal” of the institutions and apparatus of dominance was a necessity of the contradictions and conflicts within the society that the capitalist classes and imperialist countries were based on. What actually has transpired was this: the international capital had once again “thrown off from board” the “flag of democracy and peace” for which it was supposedly the “standard-bearer” and had embraced once again political reaction and violence, in a worshiping manner. The capitalist classes and imperialist countries have always assumed the attitude of arming and organising themselves while disarming their rivals through disorganisation. Preparing for certain and far advanced conflicts; arming and organising itself while disarming, disorganising and imploding their rivals – what is different today is that the capitalist classes and major powers, are today materialising this line from a far advanced front and by utilising all the supremacies and possibilities of electronics.

Despite the existence of those who claim that “the world has changed”, etc. and despite their “astonishment” with the intensification of political reaction and imperialism; there is no reason to be surprised or astonished by what has been transpiring or the increasing reaction and violence. Indeed, the “world” and the “order” regarded as “new” is, just like the “world” and the “order” of the previous century, a “world” and an “order” founded over the division and contradictions between the capital and labour, the developed countries and dependent countries and between the developed countries themselves. And just as the entirety of (economic, social, ideological) what has transpired, events concerning the intensely manifested political reaction and imperialism find their bases in these contradictions.

The elimination of class differences; the transcendence of nations; trans-national global development; the policies accelerating the global course, etc, etc. The contradictions on the ranks of the “new order” and the conflicts and struggles which originate from these contradictions have already shown that these and similar forms of theory and “theses” of the “globalists” are only constituted of demagogies. The first fifteen years of the “global world” have sufficed to prove that capitalism is in an antagonistic contradiction with the tendencies of “transcendence of nations” and “globalist world” which was created by itself; that, just as with the class divisions, the transcendence of national divisions and the global development of humanity is possible only with the accomplishment of destruction and elimination of capital by the workers.

Notes for Section I on New World Order and Section I A on Re-conquest of the World

1 The incidents of merger and takeovers have intensified to such an extent in this period that, within the mentioned period, it had spread to all sectors and with a far greater part of it being international in terms of values, it had reached dimensions never seen before with 24000 buys or mergers.

2 Reference is made to the facts coming to the fore with the collapse of Soviet Union (a new struggle for conquest and appropriation and a general wave of attacks).

3 Not only the development of economies, but also the development of crises and stagnations and the affecting of economies were also conditioned by many special conditions and just as with the developments, their influencing of economies was inevitably uneven.

4 The intensification and centralisation in capital; in mid 1990s and early 2000s, had emerged in its most progressed and most intensified form within the EU countries. It was such that, leaving aside their investing 1218 billion dollars in 1999 for buying of companies and “restructuring” business; the investments (of the same kind) of the monopolies from EU in 2000, had reached nearly half of the fusion totals of that year with a record figure of 1478 billion dollars. Indeed, during these years, the monopolies of EU countries and Japanese monopolies which depended on their growth during the 1980s and the early 1990s, have rapidly increased their market share in the US and world markets and from 1995 onwards, overtook the US monopolies by a clear distance amongst the greatest 100 companies in the world with 38 and 37 companies respectively while the US had 24. In this period, the Japanese and EU economies were experiencing stagnation and these attacks of the monopolies of these countries was in a status of being an attack that depended on the rapid development and accumulation of the previous periods.

5 Due to a range of developments in the economic factors and the increase of the influence of non-economic factors over economies, by the end of 2001 a new stimulation had begun amongst the US groups of capital. The facts demonstrated: amongst 500 major monopolistic groups which directed the world economy; the US capital which was represented with 151 companies with 29% of the total turnover of these 500 monopolies; while increasing its number of companies to 189 by the end of 2003, the turnovers of these companies have soared and have amounted to 39% of the total turnover. The great decline experienced by Japanese monopolies (82 companies with 14.6% turnover) in the late 1990s and early 2000s which had a great majority (147 companies in possession of 37% of turnover) amongst the 500 major companies in 1994 had been one of the most important characteristics of the period. This decline of the Japanese companies and the moves of the EU companies up to the beginnings of 2000s (while receding from 171 companies to 167, the rise of share of turnover from 30.2% to 37.5%) which partially arrived at a standstill is no doubt related, on the one hand, to the crises and stagnation in this countries and regions, and partially to the course of development of the struggle (and naturally to uneven development) transpiring over the world market.

6 The growth of monopolies and the growth and development of economies are no doubt not the one and the same thing. The monopolies could grow and at least the most advanced and most organised do grow when economies are in crises or stagnation. Despite this, even though influenced by general conditions; the groups of capital of the developed countries struggling in the world market are forcing their situation on economies. This forcing, in most cases, is undoubtedly not one individual basis but is one which is indirect.

7 The orientation of US and other majors in the mid-1980s towards the protection of their markets, has been the finishing of the role of GATT in trade and its downfall.

8 Reference is made to defence agreements of US and Japan.

9 On the face of protection measures of US; the direct investment of capital made by Japan in US market in 1989 had reached 70 BDs. Even though the US inclined towards investments in Japan, in the same period, it only made an investment of 8 BDs to there.

10 Only in 1999-2000; against the 40 billion marks invested by US in Germany, the amount of direct capital investment made by Germany in US was 130 billion marks.

11 The support given to space research was increased from 775 BDMs in 1984 to 1241 BDMs in 1988. Further, while the encouragements to electronic companies were doubled during the same years, the entering of the EU funds into the circuit was also enabled.

12 This struggle had in fact always existed though on different degrees. It is due to taking the claims of the NWW as a moving point and due the meaning and special importance acquired by this struggle in the aftermath of the collapse of Soviet Union that it is being considered in this way.

13 After the 1991 Iraq attack, the US forgot its words about “the new status of Middle East” including those concerning Palestine and Arabic kingdoms and the first agreement between the international coalition has therefore become worthless. The Yugoslavian war could be regarded as the second general agreement between the major powers that will again be forgotten later on.

14 In conditions where the EU army does not conduct itself in agreement with the US; though what will happen in the aftermath cannot be anticipated, it could easily be seen that it will remain as the Germany-France army in case of any intervention. Nonetheless, in conditions of US’ disagreement; it is something that cannot be overlooked that it will be difficult and remains restricted for these powers to attempt separate military operations in near future.

15 Even though the becoming of EU “a political union” and “a state-like state” embracing and taking under discipline all its current members is not impossible in theory, this is as if impossible in practice. If the EU is to remain as a union in the future, this will only be with a section of EU countries.

16 The following is clear: this does not mean that the concerning two countries agree with Russia (and indeed with one another) in every issue and that they differentiate in every issue. The Europeans are not yet ready to completely break away from the US and still for a time to come, they will continue to pursue a policy of “alliance” and a line of relative subjugation.

17 In the case that it evades being plundered in the upcoming ten or twenty years, the possibility of China emerging as a very major power and one that has the capability to change all the alliances and the course of the world cannot be disregarded; such a possibility exists independent of how it will take place.

18 Although it is not very affective, these countries have also formed an international clustering known as “the Shanghai Quintet” as an alternative against Western expansion and the impositions of the US. This demonstrates also their positioning in opposition to the US. In the struggles of near future, the special situation of Russia and its considerable power carries a great importance also currently and its weight today and in the future should not remain in the shadow of China. Further, Russia is a far more special “alliance” for Germany and France of the EU.

19 International political, military, economic institutions and organisations are institutions which emerged within the power relations of the past century; while some of these collapses; it is inevitable for some others to become the instrument of one of the groupings emerging. On the other hand, these organisation and institutions, for instance UN and EU, are not organisation which will collapse immediately overnight; these will preserve their existence until opposing powers come face to face frontally.

Notes for Section I B on the Attacks of the Capital and the Movement of the Working Class and Oppressed Nations

1 The first international attacks were conducted “spontaneously” with the 1993 crisis and by targeting the dependent countries. The conditions of the “credits given to these countries have suddenly became heftier and the amount of interest paid by these increased rapidly. Moreover, the downturn the terms of trade which followed along with figures such as 2.4 - 2.1 - 2.1% in the three years preceding the crisis; took to figures such as -3.3, % -02, % -1.8%; within a curve that is to the detriment of these countries and that could be regarded “ordinary” within the current regime; had made the situation in these countries far graver. Such that, even the oil exporting countries receded considerably from around + 11% to - 6 % in trade conditions by a relatively small crisis such as that of 1993.

2 The subsidies of the developed countries to their own agriculture amounts to over 400 million dollars per year. Despite this, alongside the imposition of removal of very modest agricultural subsidies and the progressively restricted quotas; custom duties ranging between figures of 59% and 90% and 444% are being imposed on the textile and dietary products of backward countries by the developed countries.

3 By patenting as seed the wheat the Indian peasants have been cultivating for the last 2000 years; the legal action the monopolies of the developed countries subjected the Indian peasants to for cultivating this wheat is an event of banditry which as much as being very interesting is also certainly vicious to the very extreme. Great country and monopolies have been following the same route for the entirety of agricultural products and this route, in fact, constitutes a typical example of the place where the agricultural production of dependent countries and peasant and village population is sought to be driven and condemned to.

4 To what extent it would be right to actually term this a form or kind of new colonialism is open to debate. Despite this, it is not open to discussion that what is contrived to be done today does not fit in the known definition of new colonialism.

5 Between the years of 1980 and 1990, indebted backward, dependent countries made payments of 18 BD every year on average with 12.5 billion dollars as capital and 6.5 billion dollars as interest. Despite this, these countries could not evade an increase by 62% on their debts during this period.

6 The last fifteen years has been those which are determining for the dependent countries regarded as the most developed; during this period, financial institutions such as the stock exchange, insurance and banks, communication institutions, energy operators and sectors of heavy industry has been captured by monopolies to a large extent belonging to developed and especially to great developed countries, and this process continues gaining further speed.

7 The wages are being reduced through workplace agreements, unpaid work hours and a range of absolute ways. The capital is demanding 50 hours of work in exchange of wage determined for 35 hours. As for the right to force working 73 hours, it is not a “right” to employ whose wage will be paid but rather is a “right” to employ that will be equalised through deregulated employment, and the 50 hour work week, along the other excuses, is a step that will also ease this equalisation.

8 As with every comparison, these comparisons do not also completely correspond to what is wanted to be conveyed. What is put forward here do not undoubtedly imply its return identical to the way it did in the former period and the primitive conditions of that period; reference is made to the worse conditions for the workers and peoples in the current world which could occur and which do not recognise any notion of right or law.

9 This policy no doubt is not as yet the independent policy of the working class.

Click here to go to Chapter II

Click here to return to ICMLO main menu