An often used term within the movement is "imperialism". Usually this word is put in the context of US and Zionist imperialism. But what exactly is "imperialism"? And what does it pursue?
Imperialism is not only the urge to obtain resources, territory and new markets worldwide, but above all the endeavour to export capital to economically disadvantaged areas. If necessary this is enforced and secured through military means. So: Imperialism is the hunger, craving for land and property without a political or material need. A historical example would be the Roman Empire, but also the contemporary USA, Israel and NATO, as the military alliance of Western imperialism, must be considered imperialist actors. However this appearance has an economic origin. First of all we must look at the origin of the word "imperialism":
The term "imperialism" originates from the second half of the 19th century and refers to a political system that is elevated into a policy of conquest. Since 1880 a battle arose between the superpowers for the economic and political division of the world. In this race to gain resources and markets England and France, and later on England and Germany, became increasingly hostile to each other. One of the first criticisms on English imperialism came from Hobson. In his in 1902 published "Imperialism, a Study", Hobson wrote that imperialism had huge economic disadvantages and had a "rotten influence" on social life. The question which of course arose, is why did England conduct imperialist politics, if this was so economically disadvantageous for the country?
Hobson's answer to this, was that private and commercial interest could be decisive for a non-profitable politics. The decisive factor for the rise of colonial imperia is the need for export of capital, this by the provision of international loans and other foreign credit transactions. This export of capital originated from the need to transfer economic surpluses outside the nation. Because of the unequal incomes within the imperialist States themselves, this surplus couldn’t be internally consumed. For the English people as a whole this imperialism was disadvantaged, but for the English propertied class it became the most important source of income.
Imperialism does know the following objections:
- Increasing militarism.
- Emphasis on the "unity" of the country and the tendency to minimize political indifferences for the sake of that unity.
- Averting internal social problems. This was intentionally used by the ruling classes to aim social and political energy from the inside to the outside. These groups who didn't have any economic interest in imperialism, but who wanted to consolidate their position of power, did get an interest in imperialism. As a remedy Hobson proposed to change the existing income ratios, so that the internal market could be discretionary expanded with which the compulsion for external expansion lapses.
And so it became clear that capitalism and imperialism were inextricably bound to each other. If we look at Hobson’s theory, we can see that capitalism seeks an outlet for its internal tensions and contradictions. This by means of a global quest for cheap resources, markets and labour, that can be exploited in a previously unprecedented manner. Characteristic of capitalism in its imperialist stage is:
- A separation between capital owners and entrepreneurs, between finance capital and industrial capital.
- The economy becomes monopolistic; fewer companies get a bigger share in parts of the market.
- The middle class in society disappears and becomes proletariat.
- All facets of life undergo a commercialization. Everything becomes a commodity that can be bought for a certain price.
The above mentioned points rest on a small social basis and turn to the State for protection. With this process the State gets a disproportionate influence on the modus of production. By the forced accumulation of companies the former anarchy in production is mostly removed. Monopoly-capitalism becomes State-capitalism. The State and monopolies have a tight grip on the modus of production and maximize profits by the exploitation of the developing world; one example would be the import of cheap workers from outside.
The internal contradictions of capitalism can be traced back to the fact that imperialism is not based on the export of goods, but on the export of capital to disadvantaged areas. However, the earth is not infinite, so it becomes more difficult to lairage capital surplus elsewhere. The consequence is an increasing battle between different imperialist States. Furthermore; although the internal contradictions of capitalism are somewhat solved by imperialism, they are at the same time exported by the capitalization of the world market. The ongoing expansion of production and the possibilities for a profitable marketing of products becomes caught in an increasingly diverse relationship. In the economic, political as well as in social spheres imperialism has drastic consequences:
- Imperialist States declare war on each other in the ongoing war for the division of the world.
- The proletariat is reproduced in the third world.
This led to two important theories:
1. The theory of uneven development:
Within capitalism two society-types can be indentified. There are societies that are well advanced in the development of a modern production apparatus, and there are societies in which this is not the case. The first will strive to conserve the existing situation and will develop a corresponding ideology to justify this. The last group will in their acting and ideas lean towards a change and subversion. They will try to transcend the leading society or at least try to match it. Against the high grade of economic development with the first group, stands a high grade of political awareness with the second group. These two characters are mutually exclusive. Therefore the revolution will sooner take place in a low developed country instead of a high developed one.
2. The theory of combined development:
In all backward societies the phenomena are bound to each other, which are characteristic for the different stages of development. Social phenomena, institutions, ideologies, classes and technical methods, which in the West belong to different stages of development, are joined together in the third world countries. This has consequences for State policy. Because the above mentioned phenomena is the result of capitalism "breaking into" a society, who's economy is based on agriculture, the State in these countries has to aim itself to the accumulation of capital and a accelerated industrialization. The countries that are (still) undeveloped can only catch up if they impose their people with the same hardships as capitalism imposed its working class during the first decades of the industrial revolution.
It may be clear that this imperialist manifestation, that still plagues the world today, is the biggest danger to mankind that must be definitely overcome. Imperialism is nothing more than rotting capitalism!
This brings us to another question: With or against capitalism?
A clear dividing line must be drawn between the supporters of the Hitlerite "volkgemeinschaft" (folkish community), which was and never will be more than yet another manifestation of bourgeois-nationalism or national-capitalism, and the supporters of the actual anti-capitalist class struggle, who's sole purpose is reaching the only real (national) socialism. We don't accept a "volksgemeinschaft" (folkish community) in which the working class is simply granted some "extra luxuries" like (apparent) participation, nice appointments for functions on the working ground or some more holidays. We demand nothing more and nothing less then the complete expropriation (means of production) of the propertied capitalist minority to transfer the means of production to the proletarian majority!
It must become clear where we stand as a movement:
Do we take pleasure in a national-capitalist "volksgemeinschaft" (folkish community) with the illusion of more freedom for the working class? With the lie of minimizing large class differences, while in fact keeping the backbone of the current capitalist system in tact? A system in which the means of production are still in the hands of the bourgeoisie in collaboration with the middle class based on money, capital, work and social descent?
No, we choose to fall back on the original workers concept of the national-socialist movement, with which we want to end the exploitation for once and for all. The class struggle of the oppressed proletariat - of which we are all a part of - is an actual reflection of the daily struggle between the owning and the exploiting class (entrepreneurs) and the property less class (the workers). We don't want to be part of a society that propagates a so-called "freedom for workers", but at the same time keeps the reality of employer and employee in tact. We want to guarantee our self-determination with a voice for all in the Soviets! We want to take control over the means of production to produce only the necessary livelihood without any form of unneeded production surplus or extra profits for a small minority! Nice words like "dirigisme", "profit sharing”,” people’s capitalism","participation","small-capital within a non-exploitative framework" are not going to make this harsh class-reality disappear! Only uncompromising class struggle offers the solution!
* Speech held by an ANS/NSA speaker at the anti-imperialist congress of the "Netwerk Nationale Socialisten" (Network National Socialists) on the 13th of August 2011 in Antwerp (Belgium).