On Imperialism – Xekinima’s positions in a public discussion

On Friday, March 20, 2026, the initiative of the 6 organizations for a “New United Anticapitalist Left”, organized a broad meeting of members of the organizations to discuss the issue of Imperialism in our time and the positions taken by each organization. The issue of our stand towards imperialism and towards different imperialist powers is an important point of debate in the Greek anticapitalist Left.

Comrade Eleni Mitsou spoke on behalf of Xekinima.

1. We are going through a period of increasing imperialist interventions and wars: Syria, Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, Lebanon are the battlefields of the wars of the recent period, “in our neighborhood”. There are many more if we count Africa and Central and Eastern Asia. However, we are not living in a particular period of war, in the sense that in the history of capitalism there has not been a single decade of peace. Imperialism is a constituent element of capitalism. In capitalism, every nation-state which is in a relatively powerful position compared to other/neighboring states, upon its formation will tend to develop imperialist characteristics, that is, to expand militarily, politically and economically, with the aim of exploiting the labor and resources of other peoples. This basically stems from the need of capital for continuous expansion because if capital stops expanding, the system goes into massive crisis.
2. The economic, political and military power of each country places it in a different position in the imperialist pyramid. In other words, there is no single imperialist power or bloc of powers. The imperialist system is like a pyramid, with a first, second, third, etc. line of imperialist states, and in this pyramid, there are constant rearrangements. Today, at the top of this pyramid is the USA.
3. The basic and dominant dimensions/forms of imperialism are economic and military. However, they are not the only ones. “Cultural imperialism”, which concerns, among other things, forms of entertainment, art, lifestyle, consumer patterns, language, etc., is an important aspect and in a sense is more “insidious” since it is not based on direct violence. And there are other forms, such as “epistemological imperialism”, according to which the Western way of thinking is considered as the only scientific way of thinking, at the same time as devaluing and rejecting traditional indigenous knowledge instead of studying it with respect, synthesizing and integrating elements of it.
4. Revolutionary Marxists cannot support any imperialist power. This does not mean, however, that we do not see the differences between different imperialisms and imperialists and how the working class and other popular layers to which we are appealing perceive them. Let’s take, for example the American and the Chinese or Russian imperialisms. None of the three is a “good” imperialism and we should not side with one against the other. However, we must at the same time recognize that US imperialism cannot be equated with any other imperialism in our time. China, for example, penetrates economically countries and entire continents on neo-colonial terms. Among other things, it ensures access to mineral, agricultural, etc. wealth from the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America with contracts that do not take into account labor and other rights, satisfactory wages, etc. It turns these countries into “clients” for its own industrial products while in essence inhibiting their domestic industrial development. It invests in infrastructure in Asia, Africa and L. America in order to control trade routes, gives loans, creating dependencies, etc. However, it does not have the history and, so far, the practice of the US with military interventions and wars on all continents. The fact that China is not involved in military interventions, wars, etc. does not make it a progressive or pro-working-class power with which we could align ourselves. However, we recognize its differences from the US and the impact this has on the consciousness of the popular strata. The fact is, that, in Greece and other countries in Europe and regions of the planet, we need to explain why China is an imperialist power and why its policies do not support but exploit the “developing” countries and the popular layers of these countries; while for American imperialism no such explanation is needed. It is clear that as regards working class consciousness the US and China are understood in entirely different ways.
5. Based on the above, we as “Xekinima” do not use the expression “we keep equal distances” from the imperialist powers or the imperialist camps, as some sections of the Left do. It is an expression that can create confusion and the impression that we do not understand that there are differences between the imperialist powers. The expression that we use is that it is necessary for the Left to adopt an “independent class policy” and not identify with any imperialist (or capitalist) force, but orient itself, instead, towards workers, youth and oppressed layers, aiming at an independent class policy, an anticapitalist direction and a socialist perspective.
6. Today, globally, there are a series of poles of economic power and spheres of influence. However, basically the conflicting powers are two: the USA and China. They are fighting for economic and political dominance on the planet. And around them alliances and blocs are formed. So, on the one hand we have the USA-EU block (including other countries such as Australia, Japan, etc.) and on the other, China-Russia-BRICS, an alliance which is not as “tight” as the US-EU is (or rather, was not as tight, until the recent clashes between Trump and the EU). Within the allied camps there are different interests, policies and conflicts – such as, for example, the recent US-EU conflict over Greenland. However, the camps exist. In this sense, neither “bipolarity” nor “multipolarity” accurately describe the current order of things – so the debate which exists in relation to these terms between left organisations should be seen in the correct proportions. What is clear, on the other hand, is that the ideological differences that existed between the camps at the time of the previous Cold War do not exist today. We do not have the bipolarity of the post-World War II decades, when on the one side was the West and on the other the USSR, with the two camps being separated ideologically, representing antagonistic political and economic systems.
7. Let us also note something else. In the coming decades, China will emerge as the most powerful economy on the planet, but we will not have a situation similar to the Pax Americana of previous decades (especially of the 1990s and after). Because there will also be other, very powerful poles that will prevent its absolute dominance: the USA and Europe to start with and possibly India at a later stage.
8. Today’s “multipolar” world is not more progressive than the unipolar one of previous decades (1990-2010) when the USA was the sole and undisputed dominant power on the planet (Pax Americana). We have no reason to support a multipolar capitalism over a unipolar one as something progressive. Our perspective is workers’ power and our proposal is socialism. At the same time, however, we must recognize that a multipolar capitalist world potentially allows neo- or ex- colonial countries to maneuver to a greater degree than otherwise, to rely on one bloc to resist the pressures of another, and this, under certain conditions, can have a certain positive impact. For example, South Africa appealed to the International Court of Justice in The Hague against Israel for the genocide in Palestine. This move and South Africa’s general stance on the issue, would have been less likely during the height of the “Pax Americana” period of the recent past.
9. The US alliance with the European powers (essentially the EU, Britain and Norway) has been seriously damaged after Trump’s second term. The tariffs, the threat of annexing Greenland, the surprise of the war in Iran, the threat of withdrawal from NATO etc., have created rifts in the relationship between the US and the European powers. Trump’s re-election showed that the phenomenon of Trumpism is not temporary, not something that the European powers can simply wait for to pass and then everything will be as before. Relations cannot simply return to the past. In these conditions the EU feels forced to try to move towards the formation and strengthening of its own pole as a more independent (from the US) one. However, this path stumbles on the EU’s inability to move towards its integration. That is, towards a federal state, with a unified banking and financial sector, unified fiscal policy, foreign policy and defense. Further, deeper, unification of the EU stumbles upon the different national interests of the different national ruling classes, despite the great economic interconnection between them. And this contradiction cannot be overcome. The nation-state and national borders, no matter how historically outdated and reactionary they are from the point of view of the development of the productive forces in the present era, cannot be overcome by the capitalist system. This is one of the greatest contradictions of capitalism today.
10. American imperialism is heading for further weakening. This is due both to objective factors, to the combined and uneven development of capitalism, but also to the mistaken (from the point of view of its own interests) policies it’s following, which at the end of the day undermine its power and prestige. The war in Iran and the provocative attacks on European leaders had significant consequences for the relations between the US and its former allies. Everything indicates that Trump’s policies will backfire. This does not make Trump any less dangerous, either abroad or at home. Especially since the Trump administration has different characteristics from previous US administrations. One such characteristic is its elements of Bonapartism – that is, an administration that, although in the service of the ruling class, attempts to present itself as being above society and the classes and seeks to concentrate further powers with the pretext of defending national interests and the people/nation. The leader is presented as the only one capable of saving the nation from chaos and relies heavily on the security forces and “special forces” of the ICE type. The phenomenon of Bonapartism reflects the crisis in society and the economy and the inability of the ruling class to maintain power and control through the usual parliamentary channels. The Trump phenomenon is not in fact the expression of US power but the expression of its weakness, the expression of the superpower which in historical terms is in retreat, struggling to maintain its old position.
11. A second element, characteristic of the Trump administration, is the existence of elements of fascism in its operation – however, the Trump administration is not a fascist government, ​​as some on the Left claim. It is different to have elements of fascism in government –as reflected in Elon Musk’s neo-Nazi salute and as seen in the cold blooded, public and without repercussions for the perpetrators, killings by ICE officials– than to have a fascist government. These elements, depending on circumstances, are not static but can develop in the future. We may see ministers and more MAGA executives becoming consciously fascists (possibly some already are) and parts of the MAGA base, such as those participating in ICE, becoming fascist stormtroopers. But these are different things from talking about a fascist regime or the fascistization of society today. We are very far from such a development. This perspective will continue to be valid also after Trump leaves the scene, as it will also continue to exist if the MAGA movement loses in the next elections. Trumpism, or the MAGA movement, is an existing current in society born from the economic and social crisis of American capitalism which cannot be resolved.
12. In this context, the course of the class struggle in the US will play a key role. The Left in the US is weak and even more so the revolutionary Left. However, at the same time that one part of society is moving to the right another is moving to the Left, organizing and mobilizing. The election of Mamdani in New York is an important reflection of these processes. And these are the processes in which we must invest – the strengthening of mass movements and the building of the forces of the revolutionary Left.
13. Similar phenomena and contradictions in the past led to two world wars. Today this development is not possible because all the great powers have nuclear weapons, so the destruction would be total and mutual – the system has not reached such a point of paranoia. Thus, today’s wars tend to be proxy wars. The great powers of the present are fighting not directly but on the fields of other countries and through the involvement of other forces. The war in Ukraine, in Syria and to a significant extent in Iran are such wars “by proxy”.
14. The issue of imperialism is linked to the National Question. The character of the national question today is different from what it was at the time of Lenin and the Bolsheviks (collapse of empires and creation of national states, colonialism, etc.). However, the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples remains relevant, especially when we talk about Palestine and Kurdistan – whether we are talking about oppressed peoples without a national state, or about imperialist interventions such as today in Iran and Lebanon, or about unresolved national problems such as those of Cyprus, Ireland, etc.
15. Furthermore, the Bolsheviks, at the same time as recognizing and clarifying the relationship between an oppressor and an oppressed nation, they always linked national issues to the class analysis of society. And they made a clear distinction between the classes of both the oppressor and the oppressed nation or ethnicity. On this basis, we support every country/nation/people that fights against Imperialism, without this however meaning that we support its leadership – the formed or half-formed ruling class of the oppressed nations. To be clearer, we support the Iranian people but not the Islamic government and the Islamic regime, we support the Afghan people but not the Taliban, etc. – and we criticize these regimes.
16. This criticism becomes even more necessary when there are no basic democratic rights of the kind we see in bourgeois parliamentary societies or if these leaderships follow tactics of individual terrorism aiming at the (mass) murder of civilians. The issue is not moral (although there is always a moral dimension). It is political. Marxists must support and adopt methods of anti-imperialist struggle that promote the class approach, strengthen the role of the working classes and unity among different nations or ethnicities on a class basis and not methods that weaken and undermine them (which is the case with bourgeois nationalism, religious fundamentalism and terrorism).
17. A final point on this issue is the position of “revolutionary defeatism”, which is relevant to the defeat of the imperialist camp to which our own country belongs – Greece belongs to the most aggressive imperialist coalition, that of NATO, and for us it is important that their plans and the plans of the New Democracy government fail. The expression “revolutionary defeatism” is a “formula” that clarifies our own position in the imperialist confrontations, but it is not a slogan that we can address in this way to the mass movements and oppressed layers of society – as a slogan it is not only not understandable but also generates confusion and reactions. However, it is understandable when we translate it into the specific conditions. Revolutionary defeatism in today’s conditions translates into the positions: NATO out of the Middle East (or West Asia), no involvement of Greece in the war, return of Greek soldiers, naval forces, etc., as well as all weapons systems, closure of the NATO bases, exit from NATO, dissolution of NATO, etc. This must be our emphasis today and with these slogans we must fight for the building of an anti-war movement.
18. To sum up, we need to emphasize the important point that the answer and the struggle against imperialism is not the defense of or alliance with a competitive imperialist bloc– it is the socialist perspective. The struggle for Socialism cannot be limited to the borders of one country. Socialism cannot exist or survive in one country. Therefore, our outlook, our approach and our policy must always be internationalist: by taking class positions and a class approach to national issues, imperialist interventions, etc., showing practical solidarity with movements internationally; building international movements; helping build the revolutionary Left in other countries and on an international level. Not because the revolution will happen simultaneously everywhere –as some on the Left incorrectly translate or misrepresent this position– but because socialism and workers’ power cannot survive for long in a single country; and because a victorious revolution cannot but give impetus to a chain reaction in a revolutionary direction. Revolution, and indeed often on continental dimensions, is inevitable – what our forces need to fight for is to put an end to defeated revolutions, lost, or betrayed revolutions; it is to be able to talk in the future about victorious workers’/socialist revolutions.