The Dialectics of Change : From Imperialism to Hegemonism by Vera Butler

A dialectical world view sees change as the motive force of history. The movement of opposites, from antithetical antagonisms and conflicts to their resolutions, marks the process of human development and social advancement. The dialectical model considers new factors as they emerge and analyses their influence on the direction of the antithetical movement of opposites. Unless the dialectical interaction between the old and the new is acknowledged, history becomes an accumulation of data, static rather than dynamic. As such, it makes no contribution to a better understanding of the past, and of future directions. The emergence of a hegemonic power since the end of World War II - the United States of America - does, therefore, call for an analysis in the context of Lenin's concept of imperialism.

The transition from a multiplicity of nation-states to a dominant global hegemony has not solved the contradictions between rich and poor, North and South. Hence Lenin’^’ prognosis of revolutionary

challenges to the domination of monopoly capital is relevant.

Lenin traced the development of capitalism from a system of competing imperialist powers to the stage where increasing concentration and centralisation of industrial capital led to the formation of finance capital, and the division of the world among an oligopoly of colonial powers. Today, ninety years later, as capitalism faces an economic and political crisis of global dimensions, the question arises whether Lenin's concept of imperialism is still valid.

The Imperialist Tradition.

Lenin’s Study of Imperialism As the Highest St)age of Capitalism (Peking Foreign Lang. Press, 1965) was written in the spring of 1916, in Zurich, Switzerland, at a time when World War I was in progress. 9enin, Europe's empires were still intact, foremost the British Empire, but also France's 'acquisitions' in Indochina (1859-1893), West-Africa (1876 - 1898), and Morocco (1912), the Dutch kingdom's 200-year rule in Indonesia, royal Belgium's grab of the Congo (1908), the Austro-Hungarian Empire ruling the Balkans, Kaiser Germany's colonies in East- and South-West Africa and New Guinea, and the Russian Empire under Tsar Nicholas II, stretching from the Baltic to the Pacific.

Lenin specifically referred to U.S. imperialist wars against Spain in the Philippines (1898) and Mexico (1914-1916), as examples of the "inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism" (Ibid 1p.34)In Lenin's view the emerging international syndicates, cartels and trusts, such as the international rail syndicate or the international mercantile shipping trust, led by America and Germany (with others participating), were failed attempts to redivide the world peacefully. They were mere transitions towards open conflict "on the basis of new relations of forces", because finance capital and the trusts do not diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed, what other solution of the contradictions can be found under capitalism other than that of force?"(p115)

The end of World War I was confirming Lenin's analysis. The vicious competition among the national bourgeoisies which had unleashed the war, was also the death knell of many empires:- the Kaiser abdicated in 1918, Austro-Hungary broke up into its various ethnic parts, the Ottoman empire disintegrated, and Russia's tsarist regime collapsed under the impact of revolution. Surviving imperialist powers were the victorious Allies Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal - yet their colonial empires were coming under challenge from national independence struggles - a development foreseen by Lenin :-

One of the main features of imperialism is that it accelerates the development of capitalism in the most backward countries, and thereby widens and intensifies the struggle against national oppression. (Ibid⁾

The interwar years, experiencing severe monetary-and market crises, sharpened the contradictions between labour and capital and precipitated the old imperialist countries into a desperate binge of competitive devaluations, price cuts, and protectionism. Massive labour unrest, such as Britain's General Strike of 1926, and the world-wide growth of Communist parties, appeared to confirm Lenin's prognoses.

Today, ninety years later, the hegemony power America, and its New World Order of globalised capitalism, are again in the throes of worsening economic downturn, facing its pandemics unemployment and inflation, or STAGFLATION. As the ship-of-state is sinking, the ideology of liberalism, and civil and human rights, are thrown overboard like awkward ballast. Peaceful demonstrations and sharpening class antagonisms are met with the full force of state power, people's democratic rights are abolished, and uncooperative nations become targets for military intervention.

The shift from the domination by an array of imperialist countries towards supra-national and institutional overlordships raised hopes for "peaceful" conflict resolution, but the basic pattern has not changed :- the strong still dominate the weak.

Transition from Imperialism to Hegemonism: Capitalist Realignments.

Imperialist powers and their national bourgeoisies had coveted cheap labour, immense stretches of fertile land, and the resources of the earth. Nowadays a remnant of classic imperialism is Israel and its usurpation of Palestinian territories

Capitalist competition was at the core of imperialism's decline. Already in the early 20^th century Britain was losing its pre-eminence in world markets to the vigorous and better organised Germans, and the emergent United States as a major capitalist power. Lenin noted that "in the United States, economic development in the last decades has been even more rapid than in Germany, and for this very reason the parasitic features of modern American capitalism have stood out with particular prominence." (Ibid)

The critique was to prove far-sighted. However, Lenin did not live to see World War II and the rise of the hegemony power America.

During the interwar years corporate capitalism supported the rising tide of fascism in Europe and Japan. The national bourgeoisies, steeped in imperialist tradition - foremost Nazi Germany's call for 'Lebensraum' In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Imperial Britain's hold on India, and Japan's claim to a 'Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' - had not abandoned their territorial aspirations. However, World War II turned them into paupers. The age of old style, nation-based imperialism had run its course. The United States emerged as the dominant capitalist power.The transnational nature of finance capital asserted itself

The Hegemon’s Quest for Military Supremacy Disregard for International Treaties and Conventions

The hegemon power’s ruthless pursuit of superiority, in disregard of international treaties aimed at reining in the arms race, caused legitimate concern that hegemonist ambitions endangered life on earth.

But military supremacy came at a cost. The arms race absorbed huge financial and scientific resources. Instruments of mass destruction, including delivery vehicles and their electronic guidance systems, and global command-control-and intelligence networks, became essential attributes of modern warfare.

But the cost of grandiose schemes sapped the life-blood of the US economy

Since the Bretton Woods Conference (1944) America's national currency, the dollar, became the international trade-and reserve medium. America's centralisation and control of finance capital, its productive capacity and military might, made it the unchallenged leader, or hegemony, of the capitalist world. Capitalist oligarchs - the heads of transnational corporations and institutional organisations - welcomed the leadership of the United States. The power of the hegemony was accepted as the insurance policy for capitalism's advancement and security. National aspirations came secondary to systemic interests.

Lenin's anticipation of world-wide revolutionary upheavals was gaining credibility, as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the emergent revolutionary forces in Latin America, notably Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Equador, and Nicaragua, were rejecting American economic advances and political overlordship.

The French media referred to a U.S.Air Force(USAF) programme, costing an estimated $US30 billion, which anticipates the use of hyper-powerful lasers, positioned on satellites, with the double capacity of shooting down hostile space vehicles and hitting terrestrial targets. ¹⁸ - The punitive incineration of entire cities without concomitant nuclear fallout becomes possible with laser technology, now being perfected with the help of formerly Soviet scientists selling their expertise to the highest bidder. Similar forward planning is recorded in a U.S. Space Command pamphlet "Vision for 2020", which postulates that "the globalisation of the world economy will continue, with a widening between 'haves' and 'have-nots'," and concludes that America has the mission "to dominate the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments" in an increasingly dangerous and implicitly anti-American world.

The New World Order :- Power without Responsibility.

Russia remains an important space power, if for no other reason than its pool of scientific expertise and technological know-how, and China ranks among leading nations in certain areas of space technology. Yet China, like Russia, supports multilateral, international cooperation on the peaceful use of outer space, within the framework of the United Nations. Moreover, China sounded a note of warning:-

If the U.S. side insists on pursuing power politics and attempts to acquire the world hegemony, it will not only bring instability to the world, but also cost the U.S. a heavy price.(Der Spiegel,31/1/89)

China is not the only nation voicing concern at the sharpening contradictions between hegemonic ambitions and the reality of a multipolar world. Ironically, Chris Patten -Britain's last Governor of Hong Kong and later the European Union's Commissioner for International Relations - reportedly launched a "scathing attack" on the Bush Administration's foreign policy, which he described as dangerously "absolutist and simplistic". He called on the 15 EU members - the hegemony's docile 'allies' - to cast off their "traditional wariness of angering the US" and speak up, before the hegemony took unilateral action against a so-called "axis of evil", viz. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, without convincing evidence of threats. Patten ridiculed the very notion(Guardian Weekly, 24/1/99, p 14. North Korea agreed to curtail its nuclear ambitions; Iraq was invaded in 2003; and Iran is on the hit list, because it proceeds with the development of its nuclear power programme.

Hegemony magnifies imperialist adventurism and exploitation. As such, hegemonyy is an advanced stage of imperialism. However, power without responsibility generates insoluble contradictions which pave the way for the forces of change.

Lenin's study of imperialism must be seen in the context of conditions at his time, when hegemonic tendencies were just emerging. Lenin did not live to see the outcome of World War II, the collapse of old-style imperialism, and the emergence of the United States as the dominant capitalist power. Today he would acknowledge hegemony as an advanced stage of imperialism, which will speed the final collapse of moribund capitalism.

The Dialectics of Change.

Will it, can it happen ? - The question is not if, but when and how. The system's economic and moral bankruptcy is highlighted by daily reports of huge corporate swindles, and the stench of social decay rises from the slums of the big cities. The capitalist world is rent apart by multiple contradictions and is rapidly becoming dysfunctional. There is a growing chorus of those who question systemic viability, even if there is less agreement as to what will follow after.

Neal Acherson, commenting on the hegemony's globalist ambitions, claimed in 1998 :-This New Order, still in its exultant youth, cannot stand for long. Less than a decade after the fall of communism, its fatal weaknesses are already plain. As a form of capitalism, it is too unfair and callous to last, too unequal to be tolerated, too recklessly greedy to be sustainable. Within a generation it will be challenged, and a season of rebellion and upheaval will return, in the rich zones of Europe as much as in the poor countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.(Independent International, 28/1/98)

Neal Acherson foresaw a guerrilla-type struggle between unstructured groups of highly educated people, capable of disrupting institutions, corporations, communications, and city life, who may form coalitions with the dispossessed - essentially a post-modernist pattern.

Jeremy Rifkin( The End of Work, NY, Putnam &Sons p212-214) feared that capitalism's inability to cope with unemployment was turning America into an outlaw country - the break-down of civil society :-

''Trapped in a downward spiral, and with fewer safety nets to break their fall, a growing number of unemployed and unemployable Americans will of necessity turn to crime to survive. Locked out of the new high-tech global village, they will find ways of stealing their way back in, to take by force what is being denied them by the forces of the marketplace. "

By comparison, Frederic Clairmont (The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism Pub Penang , Third World Network )remained convinced that the downtrodden will take their fate into their own hands and throw down the gauntlet to the corporate GULAG masters. Significantly, Clairmont stressed the inadequacy of well-meaning efforts by civic and religious groups to patch up the system, because they continue operating within it.. In Clairmont's view

These can never be substituted for mass struggle embodied in mass political organisations with explicitly defined targets and blueprints. History is about numbers, and about very big numbers" ²⁶

There is a ground-swell of spontaneous resistance, which signals the birth of a new consciousness, a new spirit of universal commonality, fostered by the very technologies of communication and information which are crassly misused by monopoly capital for disinformation, and the demonisation of adversaries. Ultimately the peoples of the world will claim the right to be masters of their own destinies.

Dr Vera Butler, author of CounterRevolutions studied Philosophy, Linguistics and Political Science at Freiburg,/Br, Tuebingen and Melbourne Universities.