Leer texto completo [PDF]La polémica con la mirada clásica esclarece la dinámica contemporánea del sistema imperial. Explica por qué la renovada competencia económica, no recrea las guerras entre las principales potencias capitalistas. También clarifica la incapacidad estadounidense para contrarrestar su declive económico con mayor despliegue militar.
Esa controversia permite entender el papel de Rusia o China por su exclusión del entramado dominante. Corrobora que el tablero actual no es comprensible con la vieja contraposición entre imperialismos y semicolonias.
También demuestra que la equiparación de contrincantes oscurece la primordial agresividad de las conductas imperiales. Las semejanzas con el pasado obstruyen la acción de la izquierda, cuando desconocen al enemigo principal

A tentativa de assaLeer texto completo [PDF]ensão deste acontecimento, face a todas as manobras para minimizar, banalizar ou despolitizar o ocorrido

El intento de asesinato de Cristina es un hecho gravísimo que no se zanja simples comunicados de repudio. Hay que registrar la terrible dimensión de este acontecimiento, frente a todas las maniobras para minimizar, banalizar o despolitizar lo ocurridoLeer texto completo [PDF]

China’s status as capitalist or socialist will be determined by political struggles and popular battles. This dilemma is being processed within an intermediate formation with ruling classes that do not control state power. The country’s economic shifts have expressed conflicting interests rather than socialist continuities. Initial coexistence with the market differed from the later process of restoration.
Those who see a completed capitalist regression omit the fact that the fusion between the bourgeoisie and state functionaries has not been consummated. China’s socialist legacy is a major stumbling block to this integration, in a regime that is very different to any variety of state capitalism. There are various competing currents, including one for socialist renovation promoted by the New Left.
Leer texto completo [PDF]

China’s rise illustrates the contemporary dynamics of uneven and combined development. Its socialist foundation, a complementary market and capitalist parameters underpinned a model linked to globalisation but focused on the local retention of surplus. The absence of neoliberalism and financialisation have spared China the imbalances faced by its competitors. But the penetration of capitalism has generated overinvestment and surpluses that need to be unloaded abroad.
Orthodoxy explains China’s expansion as the result of an imaginary predominance of deregulation. Heterodoxy explains it as the result of the simple application of controls that failed elsewhere. Both omit China’s socialist foundation. The millenary viewpoint exalts a mythical destiny and assumes that these very recent processes have distant roots in the past.
Capitalism is present but does not yet dominate the economy. The new bourgeois class has also not obtained control of the state, but the socialist transition has been reversed and an intermediate status prevails. The limited restoration contrasts with the trajectories of Eastern Europe and Russia. A comparison with the origins of capitalism suggests the possibility of long transitions and mixed systems
Leer texto completo [PDF]

China’s control of the pandemic has not cancelled out the impact generated by the virus that originated there, as it is closely intertwined with capitalist globalisation. This has made it necessary for the new power to rethink its economic strategy. Its partnership with the United States was shattered by the 2008 crisis but decoupling did not produce the expected results. The proposed New Silk Road presupposes a return to the world market to temper overproduction, but it has rekindled the dispute with Washington. The trade war has already moved on to become a currency war, but it will be settled in the area of technology. No one knows who will win this battle, but political divergences and internal social tensions will define its outcome.Leer texto completo [PDF]

: Imperialism safeguards the exploitation of workers and the subjugation of the periphery, using mechanisms adapted to the transformations undergone by capitalism. That adaptation is an ongoing process at present. US leadership has been undermined by economic deterioration and failed wars. It also lacks the plasticity its British predecessor had for handing over command.
Russia does not participate in the dominant group, but is driving forward the gestation of a non-hegemonic empire, one quite distinct from tsarism and the USSR. China’s protagonism is not synonymous with imperial expansion. Its defensive strategies coexist with an incomplete capitalist restoration that has incorporated the accumulation of profits at the expense of the periphery. In other regions contested pre-eminence has given new currency to the status of sub-imperialism.
The centrality of coercion to imperialism is diluted by theses that solely focus on hegemony. The current imperial system diverges from the old rivalries between powers and cannot be clarified through economic criteria alone. Geopolitical confrontations disprove the thesis of a global empire sustained by transnationalised classes and states
Leer texto completo [PDF]

Leer texto completo [PDF]El imperialismo custodia la explotación de los trabajadores y el sometimiento de la periferia, con mecanismos adoptados a las transformaciones del capitalismo. Ese amoldamiento no se ha consumado en la actualidad. El liderazgo norteamericano está socavado por el deterioro económico y los fracasos bélicos. Carece además de la plasticidad que tuvo su antecesor británico para traspasar el mando.
Rusia no participa de ese circuito dominante, pero motoriza la gestación de un imperio no hegemónico, muy distinto al zarismo y a la URSS. El protagonismo de China no es sinónimo de expansión imperial. Sus estrategias defensivas coexisten con una restauración capitalista incompleta, que incluye igualmente la acumulación de beneficios a costa de la periferia. Otras disputas por la preeminencia regional actualizan el status del subimperialismo.
La centralidad de la coerción es diluida por las tesis meramente hegemonistas. El sistema imperial actual diverge de las viejas rivalidades entre potencias y no se clarifica con criterios económicos. Las confrontaciones geopolíticas desmienten la tesis de un imperio global sostenido por clases y estados transnacionalizados.

Many differences separate modern-day Russia from the tsarist era. Russia’s convergence with Western powers has been replaced by serious clashes. This confrontation has established expansive tendencies of a different kind. Comparisons with the USSR omit the absence of capitalism under that system. There were mechanisms of external oppression, but no Soviet imperialism. Russia’s secondary place in the imperialist hierarchy is not synonymous with sub-imperialism. Nor does an ambiguous relationship with the world’s dominators prevail. Internal colonialism has resurfaced, but it does not define imperial status, nor does it determine the nature of national movements in the post-Soviet sphere.

Leer texto completo [PDF]

The criteria outlined by Lenin in his text on imperialism do not help clarify Russia’s imperial status today. Its economy does not meet the criteria demanded in terms of the domination of finance, the global importance of its monopolies or its levels of capital exports. An intermediate profile prevails, one that is distant from the dominant countries. China, on the other hand, has reached this podium without becoming an imperial power. Russia’s imperial status cannot be determined by economic indicators. The concepts of the last century must be moulded to the new realities of capitalism. Lenin’ main legacy is concentrated in his characterisations of war.Leer texto completo [PDF]