As it happens every time in History, the period of preparation for a great imperialist war increases the need for a substantive discussion, dialogue and theoretical, political struggle within the ranks of the communist movement, in order to formulate an effective revolutionary strategy.

Objectively, critical and complex issues are at the center of the discussion, which require investigation and clear answers from each Communist Party. Issues such as:

• The attitude of communists towards inter-imperialist contradictions and imperialist wars.
• The attitude towards existing and emerging imperialist alliances, the Euro-Atlantic and the emerging Eurasian axis.
• The position towards the socialist character of the revolution in our time, that is, in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.
• The stance of the Communist Party towards social democracy and the rejection of participation in or support for bourgeois governments, as well as towards cooperation with bourgeois political forces in "anti-fascist fronts" to defend bourgeois democracy.

This is a demanding discussion concerning the laws of socialist revolution and construction, in which the Communist Party of Greece consistently participates, presenting its positions and elaborations, with a view to contributing to the defense and creative development of Marxism-Leninism in contemporary conditions.

Unfortunately, KKE's positions have been met by certain parties with targeted attacks, arbitrary interpretations and distortion of their content. KKE insists on the need for a substantive, open theoretical debate, so that the essence of any differences on critical issues of revolutionary strategy can be understood.

At the same time, emerging from a rich pre-congress discussion, armed with the decisions of its 22nd Congress, KKE attempts, through its daily political action, to put its stamp on future developments, to lead the labor movement and the social alliance, for the revolutionary overthrow of the dictatorship of capital, for socialism.

Our Party consistently plays a leading role in the workers'-people's struggles against the strategy of capital and the EU, the anti-people policy of the government and the systemic opposition.

It is on the front lines of the struggle for the liberation of Greece from the imperialist alliances of NATO and the EU, with the people as the sovereign in our country. It fights against imperialist wars, the US attacks on Venezuela and Iran, the threats against Cuba.

It responds to its responsibility to clearly take a stance on crucial issues that will determine the success of revolutionary strategy in the 21st century. The present article focuses on the crucial issue of the communists' attitude towards imperialist alliances and inter-imperialist contradictions.

A series of opportunist positions argue that imperialist policy is currently practiced only by the most powerful capitalist countries, those that manage to extract large shares in the control and redistribution of markets and territories of economic importance. They claim that Lenin identified imperialism exlusively with “a handful of powerful capitalist countries that steal from the rest.” They argue that the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and anyone who does not accept these positions essentially questions the Leninist analysis of the uneven development of monopoly capitalism and its consequences, namely the difference in economic, political and military power between the bourgeois states that constitute the international imperialist system.

In reality, these opportunist positions are not something new. In essence, they are the positions of Kautsky, who detached imperialist policy from its economic base, monopoly capitalism.

As we know, Kautsky put forward the thesis that in the historical epoch of imperialism it is possible that some bourgeois states may not pursue an imperialist policy. He claimed that the dominance of monopolies in the economy of a capitalist country may “coexist with a non-monopoly, non-violent, non-predatory mode of action” in the policy of its bourgeois state. This is the line of bourgeois reformism, according to which the pursuit of imperialist policy depends on the preferences of the finance capital of a capitalist country or of an interstate imperialist alliance.

Lenin persistently and severely criticized the detachment of imperialist policy from its economic base. He emphasized that Kautsky's position, namely that a "non-imperialist policy" can, supposedly, be pursued by bourgeois states in the epoch of imperialism, completely breaks with Marxist theory and Marxist revolutionary practice.[1]

The thesis on imperialism, as the epoch of reactionary monopoly capitalism, with uniform characteristics for all states that have passed into the stage of monopoly capitalism and are integrated into the international imperialist system, whether they are weaker or stronger, is fundamental to the Leninist approach.

These are uniform features that concern the dominance of monopolies, of the powerful joint-stock companies and the intensification of capitalist competition, the formation of finance capital, the increasing importance of the export of capital in relation to the export of commodities, the struggle for the redistribution of markets and territories between capitalist states where monopoly groups with large shares in the capitalist market are based.

The economic essence of imperialism consists in the formation and dominance in all the main branches of the capitalist economy of large joint-stock enterprises (monopolies), which are born through the process of accumulation of capital and the fusion of industrial and banking capital. Monopoly should not be understood narrowly as an organizational form of production, but as the development of capital itself as a social relation, as a stage where capital “is directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital […] It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of the capitalist mode of production itself”.[2] The dominance of monopolies in the economy does not eliminate the relentless competition between capitalists for market shares; on the contrary, it exacerbates it, enlarging its dimensions.

Understanding the socio-economic content of imperialism is crucial for formulating a correct revolutionary strategy.

As Lenin himself emphasized: "If the economic roots of this phenomenon are not understood, if its political and social significance is not appreciated, not a single step can be taken in the field of solving the practical tasks of the communist movement and of the approaching social revolution."[3]

It is for this reason that he considered the scientific study of this issue as a fundamental priority, despite the volume of practical political and organizational tasks of the Russian revolutionary movement, in the heat of World War I.

Undeniably, the possibilities, the abilities of each bourgeois state in pursuing an imperialist policy are different. 

It is obvious that the different levels of development of monopoly capitalism in different countries, based on the uneven development of capitalism, give one or another country different power in the world imperialist system (in combination with its political and military power), and therefore different possibilities for political intervention and for the promotion of the interests of its monopoly groups. The different level of power of each country determines the extent to which it participates in the division of the spoils.

The USA, for example, has quite different capabilities and results in international competition compared to France, much more so if compared to Greece or Portugal, which are currently in intermediate positions in the imperialist pyramid of power of bourgeois states. However, this does not negate the fact that all bourgeois states attempt to exercise an imperialist policy in order to upgrade the position of their bourgeoisie, of their domestic monopoly groups in the international capitalist economy. Their different capabilities do not negate the fact that all bourgeois states attempt to support the export of capital of their countries, to participate in the constant sharing of markets and territories, utilizing their participation in imperialist alliances (NATO, EU, BRICS, etc.) as an additional powerful tool. The reactionary, predatory character of imperialist policy does not change because the capabilities and power among the robbers are different.

The spoils shared between them consist of the total surplus value produced by the working class around the globe, where the victim is the working class as a whole. Here we must point out the analogy with what happens inside each capitalist country: capitalist competition and the formation of the average rate of profit distribute the total surplus value produced by the working class to the various capitalists based on the size of their capital and not on the basis of the surplus value actually produced by the workers of one or another capitalist. And none of the classics of Marxism-Leninism ever imagined, because of this redistribution of surplus value, to characterize the capitalists who “lose” in this division of surplus value as “victims”. Once again, the "offender" is the bourgeoisie as a whole and the victim is the working class as a whole.

A continuation of the opportunist analysis that denies the uniform basic economic characteristics of bourgeois states in the epoch of monopoly capitalism is the position that identifies imperialism exclusively with the small group of the most powerful capitalist countries.

Supporters of this position criticize the contemporary analysis of the Communist Party of Greece because it uses, among other things, the scheme of the imperialist pyramid, in order to illuminate, on the one hand, the difference in power between capitalist countries and the continuous change in the correlation of forces due to uneven development, and, on the other hand, the uniform character of the imperialist policy practiced by all bourgeois classes and all imperialist alliances to the detriment of peoples around the world.

These opportunist analyses argue that the term "pyramid" is not mentioned in Lenin's work and that he himself, in his work on imperialism, focused exclusively on the so-called "handful of the most powerful countries."

This position constitutes a distortion of the essence of the Leninist position.

It is a fact that Lenin pointed out that a small group of countries held a leading position in the world market, thanks to trusts, cartels, and above all to the interstate relations between creditor and debtor states. Indeed, he illuminated the increase in power acquired by these states, which play the role of creditor, usurer, rentier (Renterstaat) in relation to debtor states. He also focused on the group of powerful states that possessed colonies in his time.

Undoubtedly, at every historical moment, some more powerful, leading capitalist states will stand out. However, due to uneven development, the change in the correlation between states is continuous.

This is an important position of Leninist analysis. Its understanding is of particular importance so that the study of Lenin's work is not done in a mechanistic, anti-dialectical, static manner.

In his work, Lenin correctly presents China, Turkey and Persia (Iran) as semi-colonial countries [4]. He refers to Schulze-Gaevernitz’s assessment that Argentina is an English commercial colony [5]. It is not difficult to perceive the great and complex changes in the international correlation of forces between imperialist centers and between bourgeois states, today in relation to the World War I era. Such changes characterize the development, expansion and decay of the international imperialist system throughout historical time.

Today, close to 200 countries exist as separate state entities. In the present-day imperialist system, a regime of unequal interdependence of all capitalist states has been formed. Due to the influence of the export of capital and the speed of technological change, the correlation of power between capitalist states is changing. Strong creditor states of the 20th century have today turned into debtor states (e.g. the large current state debt of the USA, France, Italy), while China is now a creditor state. The change in the power of Britain relative to India from the 20th to the 21st century is the most characteristic example.[6]

However, all these aspects of the Leninist analysis do not lead to the erroneous conclusion that imperialist policy is pursued only by the capitalist states that are located, at each historical moment, at the top of the imperialist pyramid.

Lenin already illuminated in his own time the imperialist policy of bourgeois states and bourgeois classes that did not belong to the so-called “Great Powers”.

He highlighted the role of the Belgian bourgeoisie, which was robbing the people of the Congo and investing 3 billion francs abroad, and criticized the Belgian comrades who limited their struggle only to the liberation of the country from the German invasion and occupation without raising the issue of the class liberation of the working class.[7]

Lenin also aptly pointed out that alongside the colonial moves of the great powers there existed colonies of smaller states, thanks to the contradictions of the great powers over the division of the spoils.[8] “Danish imperialism” was a typical example of this period.[9] Referring to Italian imperialism, which he characterized as the imperialism of the poor, he emphasized that every bourgeoisie fights to achieve privileges for its national capital and at the same time deceives the people, presenting the imperialist struggle for the right to plunder other peoples as a "national liberation war".[10]

He pointed out that competition between various countries necessarily sets for each one the goal of upgrading its position at the expense of other countries.

The basis of the imperialist policy of smaller capitalist states is the development of monopoly capitalism in them. The Leninist theory of imperialism, focusing on its economic essence, the emergence of monopoly, can interpret such phenomena on the basis of the evolving development of monopoly capitalism throughout the capitalist world.

In addition, these concrete examples help to understand the essence of the fundamental Leninist thesis that, due to the influence of the law of uneven development, unequal relations concern all capitalist states and are inherent in the imperialist system. 

It is within this framework that communists must examine the development of imperialist alliances, of unequal interstate relations, of existing imperialist military, political and economic inter-dependencies, as well as the intensification of inter-imperialist interventions, the proliferation of local wars, and the risk of their further expansion, as well as the risk of a new generalized imperialist war.

The current complexity of the movement of the global capitalist economy cannot be interpreted correctly and comprehensively if we limit ourselves to the actions of the states at the top of the imperialist pyramid. We can easily confirm this position if we look at the decline in the economic role of the G7 over the last fifteen years, as well as the change in the correlation between the US-Eurozone and the BRICS.

In the same vein, anyone who underestimates the role, plans and influence of states such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, which are not among the leading capitalist states in the period we are going through, but are actively participating in the struggle for the redistribution of markets and territories of economic importance in the Middle East, will reach erroneous conclusions regarding developments in the wider Eastern Mediterranean region.

This is why the scheme of the imperialist pyramid helps to visualize not only the differentiation of power between states (top - middle - base of the pyramid), but also its dynamic character, the change in the correlation of forces in the context of uneven development. To understand more deeply the relations of unequal interdependence that exist between bourgeois states in the context of imperialist alliances.

Lenin used similar schemes in his work to make the essence of his analysis comprehensible, such as the scheme of the imperialist chain (with strong and weaker links), as well as the distinction of geographical areas with greater or lesser levels of capitalist development.

The law of uneven development results in changing the material conditions upon which alliances between capitalist states are formed, particularly in the era of monopoly capitalism.

Lenin very aptly brings out this conclusion, examining the economic content of the slogan “United States of Europe”. He emphasizes that under capitalist conditions the United States of Europe would be either reactionary or unrealizable, since they would amount to a permanent agreement on the division of colonies and markets among the large European bourgeois states. He explains that a temporary agreement between European states would be possible in order to jointly stifle socialism in Europe and jointly protect the plundered colonies and markets they control against America and Japan.

Historical experience has confirmed Lenin's prediction. Lenin's analysis illuminates the basic characteristics of imperialist alliances.

Imperialist alliances are inter-state alliances that express the common interests of the bourgeois classes of their member states. These common interests concern the expansion of their monopolies, the protection of their competitiveness in conditions of intensifying competition in the international imperialist system, as well as the unified confrontation with the labor movement, the neutralization of the revolutionary communist parties.

The common goals of the monopolies of the member-states of an imperialist alliance cannot negate the asymmetry and the nation-state organization on which capitalist accumulation is based. The nation-state organization concerns the different conditions of profitability for capital (e.g. taxation, labor legislation), the different levels of productivity and competitiveness in each state. Common goals cannot negate the competition and contradictions both within each imperialist alliance and between different imperialist alliances and axes. Reshuffling in international relations also leads to changes in the composition and structure of imperialist alliances. Imperialist alliances and the sharp exacerbation of intra-imperialist contradictions, which leads to the breaking of alliances, are two sides of the same coin.

A decisive role in the change in the international correlation of forces is played by the growing dominance of finance capital in the economy as a whole. Lenin persistently repeats in his work the thesis that the dominance of finance capital strengthens asymmetry, "strengthens the differences in the speed with which the various sectors of the economy develop."[11]

He shed light on the unusually high speed at which capitalist development was progressing in Germany, the USA and Japan compared to France and Britain, a fact which changed the international correlation of forces and led to imperialist war for the redistribution of markets and territories. [12]

Lenin pointed out that a number of backward countries had already been drawn into the orbit of world capitalism, thus creating and strengthening the possibility for the export of capital from the powerful capitalist states of the time. [13] He essentially predicts the weakening of the global power of the powerful states of Europe and the change in the economic and political conditions of Europe itself in the following decades. [14]

The main aspect in the Leninist work is the determination of the causes that lead to the continuous change of the international correlation of forces and to the intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions, and not the description of the specific correlation during the period of World War I.

The shift in the correlation of forces between the US and the EU constitutes a typical example in today's conditions. The expanding superiority of the US in artificial intelligence and the development of new technologies, in energy costs, in productivity, and in military power, as summarized in the Draghi report [15], sharpen the contradictions within the Euro-Atlantic imperialist alliance.

The goal of the USA is to find profitable outlets for investing the overaccumulated capital of its corporations, at the expense of the EU and its other competitors. In contrast, the EU is attempting to strengthen its 'strategic autonomy' as an imperialist center, increasing its military power and narrowing the gap with the USA, especially in new technologies. In this context, the emergence of the Britain-Germany-France alliance and France's initiative to cover 8 European countries with its own nuclear umbrella are significant.

Thus, within the framework of uneven development, inter-imperialist contradictions within the Euro-Atlantic axis and intra-bourgeois contradictions within the United States and the EU member states are intensifying, despite the strong strategic ties of the NATO member states.

Expressions of these contradictions include the tarriff trade war, the U.S. threats against Denmark's territorial integrity (the Greenland issue), the differences over “green” shipping and the “green transition”, the degree of penetration of American LNG in Europe, the military spending for NATO, the different stance in the Middle East and in relations with Russia.

In today's difficult and complex conditions, as inter-imperialist contradictions are sharpening and the danger of a generalized imperialist war is increasing, communists have the duty to fight decisively and methodically so that the working class does not allign itself behind the bourgeoisie of its country, so that it does not become trapped in the choice of siding with one of the competing imperialist alliances. A prerequisite for achieving this goal is the continuous effort not to detach the daily political and economic struggles from the fundamental revolutionary political task. The goal of workers' power should not be sidelined by any "transitional" political goal on capitalist ground (e.g. the change of bourgeois government). The revolutionary strategic orientation must remain stable in both conditions of growth and conditions of decline of the movement, without concessions in the name of the manifestation of an economic crisis, the rise of the fascist current, the danger or even the break-out of an imperialist war.

We communists must educate the people and orient the labor movement so that it has no confidence in any bourgeois government, any bourgeoisie, any imperialist alliance. Only then can we exploit inter-imperialist contradictions to the benefit of the historical mission of the working class and respond to conditions of a sharp intensification of the class struggle.

The history of the 20th century offers rich experience regarding the possibility and importance of utilizing inter-imperialist contradictions for the victory of the socialist revolution in a country and for achieving successes in the initial efforts of socialist construction.

The Bolsheviks' activity for the victory of the October Revolution and the establishment of the world's first socialist state is the most striking example. It demonstrated that the workers' movement in any country must not be trapped in the pursuits of the domestic bourgeoisie, nor pursue a tailist policy behind one of the competing imperialist centers.

The Bolsheviks exploited the heightened contradictions between Germany and Britain during the First Imperialist World War, not only for the victory of the socialist revolution, but also for the consolidation of workers' power.

Lenin highlighted as fundamental conditions for a successful exploitation of inter-imperialist contradictions, on the one hand, the independence of the revolutionary vanguard of the working class, the Communist Party, from the pursuits and goals of any imperialist alliance, and on the other hand, the stable strategic orientation for the revolutionary overthrow of the domestic bourgeoisie both in the period of imperialist war and in the period of imperialist peace.

Lenin strongly criticized in his time the social-nationalist positions of A. Potresov, which focused on choosing the bourgeois side in the imperialist war, the victory of which the revolutionary labor movement should wish. In his important article “Under a False Flag” in 1915, he emphasized that the revolutionary vanguard “will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one or the other imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides are equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be national-liberal and have nothing in common with genuine internationalism.” [16]

The attitude towards inter-imperialist contradictions is today at the center of the theoretical struggle and crisis in the international communist movement. A crisis that has also strongly manifested itself in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (IMCP), which began on the initiative of the Communist Party of Greece in the conditions of counter-revolution.

Some CPs promote the strengthening of the EU's "strategic autonomy" as a supposed counterweight to the aggression of US imperialism. Other CPs support capitalist China and falsely present the Eurasian axis as an anti-imperialist force.

In Russia, the CPRF and the RCWP openly take a position in favor of the Russian bourgeoisie and the Russian state in the imperialist war being waged in Ukraine. They are essentially adopting the pretexts of “anti-fascist action” invoked by Putin’s bourgeois government to justify the invasion of Russian troops in Ukraine. These are excuses that do not withstand serious criticism, at a time when Trump, Putin and the EU are haggling over new agreements for the control and sharing of the wealth-producing resources of the wider region. The US, NATO, the EU and Russia invoke as an alibi to promote their reactionary plans the imperialist military interventions by their respective competitors against the sovereignty of states and peoples.

 The Communist Party of Greece, together with other Communist parties that follow a consistent line, continue to steadily and decisively shed light on the real causes of imperialist war, on the imperialist antagonisms that cause it, and on the danger of its further escalation and generalization.

In the era of war preparations that we are going through, it is of decisive importance for every Communist Party to adhere to the Leninist line against imperialist war. To ensure the ideological, political and organizational independence of the communists, the independent struggle of the working class for its own interests against the line and the pursuits of all bourgeois classes and the different imperialist alliances.

Ensuring this class political independence is a necessary condition for the victorious implementation of the revolutionary strategy, the overthrow of the power of capital in each country or group of countries.

Some of those who advocate the need to move in tandem with the Chinese bourgeoisie and the emerging Eurasian axis also question the development of monopoly capitalism in today's China. They essentially proclaim the United States as the sole adversary of the revolutionary labor movement. They also refuse to recognize the catalytic effect of the competition between the USA and China for primacy in the international capitalist system.

It is undeniable that the USA maintains, in terms of overall economic, political and military power, the first place in the pyramid of the international imperialist system. It is the leader of the Euro-Atlantic axis and a deadly opponent for the communist and workers' movement. Its criminal reactionary interventions extend to every corner of the planet, from the Middle East, Palestine and Iran to Greenland and the Ukraine, to Cuba and Venezuela.

However, this fact should in no way obscure the character and role of China and Russia today. The analysis that identifies imperialism only with the most powerful country, only with the “main imperialist aggressor”, as some Russian CP's argue, disorients and obscures the strategic tasks of the communist movement.

The analysis of the course of international developments must be done in a very specific and concrete way, utilizing the sum of the Leninist characteristics that define the economic and political essence of imperialism. Otherwise we cannot shed light on the development of monopoly capitalism in each country and internationally.

Over the last twenty years, in the context of uneven development, the balance of forces between capitalist states has changed significantly.

The very elements of today's reality demonstrate that the position of the core of the great powers of the past (e.g. G7), in terms of global GDP, has weakened in relation to some rising powers. The mere creation of the G20 in 1999, as well as that of various new inter-state associations and agreements (BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, "Belt and Road Initiative", etc.), at the initiative of rising capitalist powers, reveal the serious rearrangements that have occurred in global capitalism.

China exhibits today all the characteristics of a state that strives to claim from the USA the apex of the imperialist pyramid. Its GDP jumped from 3.6% to 16.9% of world GDP between 2000 and 2024, compared to 26,2% for the USA in 2024.[17] Looking at the levels of manufacturing on a global scale, China now accounts for 35% of global output in terms of Gross Domestic Product (up from just 5% in 1995), while the US accounts for just 12%.[18] Over the past 20 years, it has become a net exporter not only of final manufactured products but also of intermediate products, reversing the trajectory of previous years. In other words. It has a trade surplus of $1,19 trillion in 2025 compared to a US trade deficit of $1,24 trillion. China is no longer simply an assembly line for intermediate goods produced by monopoly groups in other countries.

China currently installs the most industrial robots annually, far ahead of its competitors – 54% of new installations in 2024, compared to 8% in Japan and 6% in the US.[19] Not to mention its much-discussed dominance in the rare earths market, where it controls 60% of global mining, 85% of processing and 90% of high-performance battery production,[20] an issue that is a central point of confrontation between imperialist centers today.[21] In 2025, it recorded $336 billion in military spending compared to $954 billion spent by the US, i.e. 12% of total global military spending compared to 33% for the US.

All of the above-mentioned characteristics of China's economic development today do not constitute indications of the superiority of a supposedly planned "socialist development." The verbal declarations of the Chinese leadership, which have been reflected in the country's Constitution, that "the socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed", that "China will be in the first stage of socialism for a long time" and that "individual and private enterprises constitute a significant part of the socialist market economy" are not only in obvious contradiction with each other, but also violate the very laws of socialist construction.

Socialism is the first phase of the communist socio-economic formation, not some “transitional society” with distinct characteristics, both in relation to capitalism and in relation to socialism It is not a society with multiple forms of economy, as they claim for China today. Production under socialism is also directly social production, with the concentrated means of production being socialized, with Central Planning of production and distribution of the greater part of the social product. Any preservation under socialism of forms of individual and group property and of commodity-money relations connected with them cannot constitute a “significant” and long-term phenomenon of social production, but must be progressively limited until their complete disappearance.

In contrast, in today's China the character of the relations of production follows a completely different course. Central Planning, a fundamental law of socialist construction, is a figment of the imagination in today's China. Central Planning has been undermined and abrogated since the early 90's, initially through the restriction of the plan indicators that were mandatory for state-owned enterprises and the transformation of those indicators that were retained into simple guidelines without mandatory implementation.

According to data from China's own National Bureau of Statistics, in 2025 the private sector accounted for over 60% of the country's GDP, 57% of fixed capital investment, 49% of external trade, and over 80% of urban employment.[22] We note that corporate capital as private property was zero in 1978 and had already shot up to 33% by 2014, in a course of a continuous strengthening of private ownership over the means of production. In the 100 largest enterprises listed on the Chinese stock exchange, the private sector represented in 2021 over 50% of the capital value, while in 2010 the corresponding percentage was still only 8%.[23]

Indicative of the rapid expansion of capitalist relations of production is the increase in social inequalities in China today. In 2024, the richest 10% of Chinese received 43.3% of total income (27.8% in 1978). while the poorest 50% of Chinese received only 13.7% (25.2% in 1978). In 2024, the richest 10% of Chinese had accumulated 68% of total wealth (the corresponding figure in the United States in the same year was 70%).[24] At the same time, there are now over 1,000 billionaires in China, with 100 of them having a net worth of over $4.5 billion each.[25]

The fact that several large enterprise groups in today's China, often in strategic sectors of the economy, are still state-owned and that the state sector is constitutionally called "the guiding force of the economy", does not constitute any kind of proof of the "socialist" character of production and the economy. One only needs to recall the example of many capitalist countries around the world, at different levels of capitalist development, where large enterprise groups, in crucial sectors of the economy, were state-owned for decades, depending on the needs of capital at each time. It is the character of state power directing these monopoly groups that determines their capitalist nature and this power in today's China is, unfortunately, neither "socialist" nor "people's - national liberation", as its supporters claim.

One must examine in a similar fashion the role and position of today's capitalist Russia in the long process of capital accumulation following the counter-revolutionary overthrow of the late 1980s. In Russia today, gigantic capitalist monopolies ("Gazprom", "Rosneft", "Lukoil", "Rosatom", "Sberbank", "Norilsk Nickel", "Rosvooruzhenye", "Rostec", "Rusal", etc.) exploit millions of workers, not only in the country itself, but also in the former Soviet Republics, the CIS, in Africa, South America, Europe and the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, etc.[26]

The pursuits of the Russian monopolies play a central role in the policy of the Russian bourgeois state in the military operations in Ukraine, artfully hidden behind the cloak of an alleged “anti-fascist” struggle against the reactionary regime in Kiev and its NATO patrons. This also explains why from 2014 onwards (after the government coup in the Ukraine) monopoly groups and the bourgeois state of Russia maintained extensive profitable economic relations with the reactionary government that mercilessly persecuted the Russian and Russian-speaking population and banned the activities of communists and other activists.

A prerequisite for the exploitation by the communist movement of these contradictions and cracks in the enemy's camp to the benefit of the victory of the socialist revolution is that it does not align itself behind any bourgeois side. It must also exploit the increase in popular discontent generated by the increase in repression and the cutbacks in social policy spending, in order to illuminate in each country the real adversary, the power of capital and the imperialist alliance that supports it.

A clear answer to the issues we examined above is crucial for the strategic orientation of every Communist Party.

However, the problem is deeper. It concerns the erroneous determination of the character of the revolution using as a criterion the different level of development of the productive forces at each time and the changing position of a capitalist country in the international imperialist system. This specific correlation constitutes the methodological background for a series of contradictions and errors in strategy of the International Communist Movement in the 20th century.

This erroneous methodological approach underestimates the potential of the (immature) communist relations of production to give a great impetus, to unleash the development of the productive forces. For example, the low level of electrification of Tsarist Russia was quickly overcome after the October Revolution. Lenin, after an exhausting effort to elaborate the Bolshevik strategy, denied in practice the positions of Plekhanov, Kautsky, Martov, but also of some Bolshevik cadres who believed that Russia should necessarily follow the path of the notorious “maturation of capitalism”. And he was vindicated by the spectacular steps taken in the development of the productive forces in the first decades of the USSR, achieved by the scientific Central Planning of working class power.

More generally, assessing the level of development of the productive forces independently of the relations of production is a dangerous abstraction. The productive forces exist, function and develop only within the dialectical interaction with the relations of production of any particular mode of production, capitalist or communist. There is no “class-neutral” development of the productive forces under capitalism.

Ultimately, the character of the revolution in each capitalist country is determined by the basic contradiction it is called upon to resolve, regardless of the relative change in the country's position among a group of countries in the international capitalist system or in an alliance, economic or even military-political.

By studying the historical development of capitalism from the epoch of free competition, to the formation of powerful joint-stock companies in the course of the development of the productive forces in capitalism, Lenin illuminated the sharpening of the fundamental contradiction between labor and capital in the stage of monopoly capitalism.

The dominance of monopolies, of powerful joint-stock companies, leads to the distancing, to the separation of capitalist property from the operation and organization of capitalist production and constitutes the economic basis for the increase in the parasitic role of the bourgeoisie in every capitalist state. Dangerous parasites-shareholders profit daily from the purchase and sale of shares of capitalist enterprises, having no relation to the operation and organization of the specific enterprises.

At the same time, the political essence of imperialism is the turn towards reaction across the board. “Both in foreign and domestic policy imperialism tends towards the violation of democracy, towards reaction.” [27] The colonial system, but also the multifaceted political dependencies of many countries on the strong imperialist states of the early 20th century, constitute phenomena of this political essence of imperialism, aspects of the development of monopoly capitalism at this specific time.

If we do not approach imperialism from the perspective of its economic and political essence, we run the risk of it being dissolved in the wealth of its external manifestations, which may evolve, be enriched, differentiated, transformed, changed. Monopoly capitalism is a living, flowing reality, not an ossified construct, stuck in time and space.

It is also important to understand that unequal relations and an uneven development are inherent in the imperialist system, therefore it cannot be the goal of the labor movement to ensure equal interstate relations on capitalist soil. Accordingly, the co-responsibility of all bourgeois classes of every imperialist alliance in escalating the attack on the working class must be understood.

It is inconceivable that the struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of monopoly capitalism, for the liberation of the working people from all forms of exploitation, the struggle against imperialist war, will have a positive development if it is not combined with the struggle against opportunism. Regardless of the political strength of opportunism in each country, it should not be underestimated or judged by parliamentary criteria, since the root of opportunism lies in the imperialist system itself, since the bourgeoisie, when it sees that it is beginning to be unable to manage its affairs with stability, relies on opportunism as a diffuse bourgeois or petty-bourgeois perception, within the labor movement, as a political party. It exploits opportunism in order to gain time, to reorganize the bourgeois political system, to undermine the steady rise of the workers' revolutionary movement.

In today's complex and demanding conditions, it is crucial for the communist and labor movement not be trapped in the goal of changing the correlation of forces between bourgeois political forces and imperialist centers.

Ensuring the class independence of the communist movement is a crucial condition for fulfilling the basic task of the period, the concentration of forces for the victory of the socialist revolution. In this direction, KKE is trying to contribute creatively with all its strength.