7. The re-division of the world at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century which Lenin referred to was between the strongest capitalist

countries, but the other capitalist states were not at all uninvolved and passive regarding the game concerning the distribution of the markets. The strong

capitalist countries divided up not only the colonies but also the non colonized countries, while next to the major colonial powers there were small

colonial powers via which the new colonial expansion began. Indeed he mentioned small states that maintained colonies, when the large colonial powers could

not agree over the division.

Indeed Lenin stressed that the colonial political line also existed in pre-capitalist societies, but that what distinguishes the capitalist colonial policy

is that it is based on the monopoly. He underlined that the variety of relations between the capitalists states in the period of imperialism become a

general system, they are part of the entirety of the relations in the division of the world, they are transformed into links in the chain of the actions of

global finance capital. The relations of dependence and the looting of the raw materials appear at the expense of non-colonized countries, i.e. states with

political independence even more so than in the period referred to by Lenin.

After the Second World War and the formation of the international socialist system, out of necessity there was the maximum rallying of imperialism against

the forces of socialism-communism and its aggressiveness intensified. Under the impact of the new correlation of forces the dissolution of the French and

British colonial empires rapidly began. The strongest capitalist states were forced to recognise the independence of the nation states, under the pressure

from the national independence movements which enjoyed the many-sided support and solidarity of the socialist countries, of the labour and communist


In the post-war period, a series of countries were not fully incorporated into the military-political and economic unions of imperialism, as they had the

possibility of forming economic relations with the socialist countries, despite the fact that the correlation of forces remained in favour of capitalism.

The variety of relations, interdependencies as well as obligations in the framework of the global capitalist market is borne out once again.

In the last decade of the 20th century the situation started to change. The now mature and strongest capitalist countries, which are at the top of the

pyramid, follow a different pro-monopoly political line, particularly under the impact of the economic capitalist crisis in 1973. The contemporary strategy

for supporting capitalist profitability, in conditions of emerging competition and more rapid internationalization, abandons the neo-keynesian formulas

which were useful especially in countries which had suffered from the destruction of war. It proceeds with extensive privatizations, strengthens the export

of capital, ceases and gradually abolishes concessions it had made particularly social ones, with the aim of curbing the labour movement which was

influenced by the gains of socialism and mainly to buy off a part of the working class and intermediate social strata.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the contemporary pro-monopoly political line has a global character, and is not related to a contingent form of

management but a strategic choice, as anti-worker and anti-people measures are being taken to deal with the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, in

nearly all the countries, and not just in the EU, but beyond it, including Latin America. The measures which aim at abolishing working class gains are

being taken both by liberal and by social-democratic governments, both by the centre-right and by the centre-left.

8. The capitalist restoration provided the opportunity for imperialism to unleash a new wave of attacks with less resistance, with the assistance of

opportunism which had strengthened, while new markets were formed in the former socialist countries. A result was that the unity of the leading powers

against socialism relaxed, something which had previously relegated the contradictions between them into the background. A new round of inter-imperialist

contradictions flared up for the division of new markets, which resulted in the wars in the Balkans, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. States, which

are not incorporated into the imperialist inter-state unions, took part in these wars, proof that the imperialist exists as a global system, and all the

capitalist countries are incorporated in it, even countries with elements of backwardness and remnants of pre-capitalist economic forms. The leading powers

are at its summit, there is a tough competition between them and whatever agreements they come to have a temporary character.

At the end of the 20th century there were three imperialist centres as they were formed after the World War, the European Economic Community which later

became the EU, the USA and Japan. Today the number of imperialist centres has increased, while new forms of alliance have also emerged such as the alliance

centred on Russia, the alliance of Shanghai, the alliance of BRICS, the alliance MERCOSUR etc.

The capitalist countries at the summit are not the only ones that implement an imperialist political line, the ones at the lower levels also do, even those

which have strong dependencies on the stronger powers as regional and local powers. For example, Turkey is such a power in our region today, as well as

Israel, Arab states and such forces through which monopoly capital acquires new terrain in Africa, Asia, Latin America, as a consequence we have the

phenomenon of dependency and inter-dependency.

9. The dependency and interdependency of the economies are not of course equal and are determined by the economic strength of each country as well as

certain other military-political elements, according to the particular bonds of an alliance.

And even if several countries are at the highest level in terms of capitalist internationalization, in the re-division of markets, they still exist in a

regime of interdependence on other countries. For example, Germany may be the leading power in Europe but its exports of capital and industrial commodities

are dependent on the capacity of the European countries to absorb them. The course of the US economy is dependent on China to a great extent as well as on

the opposed interests in the EU. The battle of the dollar, euro and yen is visible.

The number of states is increasing which are regional powers, satellites of strong imperialist powers, countries which play a particular role in the

alliance and partnership policy of the various powers in the pyramid. The inter-imperialist contradictions are in effect in every form of alliance, and all

these multi-facetted relations, which embrace every capitalist country in the world without exception, constitute the imperialist pyramid.

10. Our reference to this does not at all imply that we agree with positions concerning “ultra-imperialism”, as some mistakenly accuse us of. On the

contrary! We always highlight that inside the imperialist system, which we liken to a pyramid, strong contradictions continue to develop and manifest

themselves between the imperialist states, the monopolies for the control of raw materials, the transport routes, the market shares etc. The bourgeoisie

can form a joint front for the most efficient exploitation of the workers, but it will always sharpen the knives, when there is imperialist “plunder” to be

divided up.

Lenin as is very well-known had used the schema of the “chain”. The schema which we use on every occasion is a way for us to help the workers understand

the reality of imperialism as monopoly capitalism, capitalism which is rotting and dying, in which every capitalist country is incorporated based on its

strength ( economic, political, military etc.). Something of course, which comes in to clear conflict with the so-called “cultural approach” towards

imperialism, which like Kautsky did, detaches the political line of imperialism from its economy. As Lenin stressed, such an approach will lead us to the

mistaken assessment that the monopolies in the economy can co-exist with a non-monopoly, non-violent, non-predatory manner of activity in politics.

11. Uneven development becomes even more apparent not only between the strongest capitalist countries in comparison to the weaker ones and also in the hard

core of the strongest countries. It is characteristic that in Europe the gap between Germany on the one hand and France-Italy on the other is widening. But

the most important and characteristic phenomenon is the reduction of the shares of the USA, EU and Japan in the Gross World Product. The Eurozone no longer

maintains the second position, it has fallen to third place, while it has been replaced by China in second place. The share of China, India in the Gross

World Product has increased while the shares of BRICS remain stable.

The theses of the 19th Congress of the KKE underline that the changes in the correlation of forces between the capitalist states increases the possibility

of a total repositioning of Germany regarding the issue of Euro-Atlantic relations and the realignment of the imperialist axes. Decisive factors for this

development are on the one hand the relations of inter-dependence of the EU-USA economies, on the other hand the competition between the euro and dollar as

international reserve currencies and the strengthening of the cooperation between Russia and China.

12. All this evidence confirms from this standpoint that the contemporary struggle must have an anti-monopoly, anti-capitalist direction, in no instance

can it only be anti-imperialist with the content the opportunists give to this term, who identify imperialism with an aggressive foreign policy, with war,

with the so-called national question – detached from class exploitation, from the relations of ownership and power.

13. The contemporary opportunists when they want to underline the need for their own bourgeois class not to be the poor relation in the division of the

markets, remember the national question, however when the issue is the struggle for socialism they then proclaim that either socialism will be global or

that it cannot be realized in one country, they eliminate the national terrain of struggle, i.e. they excommunicate the need to sharpen the class struggle,

the need for the subjective factor to be ready in the revolutionary situation.

14. The struggle for the liberation of man from every form of exploitation, the struggle against the imperialist war, cannot have a positive development,

when it is not combined with the struggle against opportunism. Regardless of the political strength of opportunism in each country, it must not be

under-estimated or judged using parliamentary criteria, as the root of opportunism is to be found in the imperialist system itself, because the bourgeoisie

when it sees that it cannot stably manage its affairs supports opportunism as a widespread view and as a political party, in order to buy time, to regroup

the bourgeois political system, to undermine the stable rise of the revolutionary labour movement.

15. The concentration of forces, the alliance of the working class with the poor strata of the self-employed due to the objective conditions must develop

in a stable anti-monopoly anti-capitalist direction, to be directed towards the acquisition of working class power. The anti-monopoly anti-capitalist

direction expresses the necessary but advanced compromise between the interests of the working class in abolishing every form of capitalist ownership,

large, medium, small and the strata that vacillate due to their nature (because of their position in the capitalist economy) but have an interest in

abolishing the monopolies, socialising the concentrated means of production. At the same time they are permeated by the illusion that they have an interest

in small-scale private ownership, they cannot understand that both their medium-term and long-term interests can be served by socialist power.

The KKE in the conditions of a non-revolutionary situation seeks not only to prevent the downward spiral, not only to win even some temporary concessions,

but to prepare the subjective factor, i.e. the party, the working class and its allies for the realization of its strategic tasks in a revolutionary

situation. In these conditions, which cannot be predicted in advance, the deepening of the economic crisis must be taken into account, the sharpening of

the inter-imperialist contradictions which reach the point of military conflicts, it is possible that such pre-conditions and developments will be created

in Greece. In the conditions of the revolutionary situation, the role of the organizational and political readiness of the vanguard of the labour movement,

the Communist Party, is decisive for the rallying and revolutionary orientation of the majority of the working class, especially of the industrial

proletariat, to attract the leading sections of the popular strata.