RESOLUTION OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTORATE OF THE RED BRIGADES: FEBRUARY 1978: PART 1

BRIGATE-ROSSE-Rivoluzione-della-Direzione-Strategica-February-1978

1: THE IMPERIALISM OF THE MULTINATIONALS

By the term IMPERIALISM OF THE MULTINATIONALS we mean that phase of capitalism in which monopolistic multinational capitalism predominates.

The multinational-cross-sectoral monopolies, namely the big trusts, with facilities in various countries and investments in diverse sectors are now the dominant structural element and the fundamental base of the movement of capital, is thus no longer national space but capitalist space in its totality.

If the fundamental defining element of imperialism is monopoly capital, it is only since the second world war that there has been a definitive affirmation of monopolistic multinational capital throughout capitalist space. The major monopolist groups can now definitively exceed their national limits, in order to range freely throughout this space, and this is a necessary and essential condition for any further development of the multinational structures. In fact it is thanks to this that they can take full advantage of the diverse rates of profit present within this space, and thus realize the enormous super-profits which are characteristic of accumulation in this phase of imperialism.

“Multinationality” is not simply the internationalization of the capitalist market, but internationalization of capital in its totality! The structure of production, the market, the relations of property etc.

This process of internationalization of capital determines the dominance of the IMPERIALIST BOURGEOISIE within the bourgeois front, the class expression of multinational, monopolist capital, and parallel to this the affirmation and consolidation of its instruments of mediation and domination (Trilateral Commission, Imperialist State of the Multinationals [SIM], IMF, EEC..).

The domination of multinational capital and the imperialist bourgeoisie, does not mean that in this phase all capital is multinational, but that every other form of capital, be it national or non-monopolist, now needs to be analyzed in its relation of organic dependence on multinational capital: it is the movement of multinational capital which in the final instance determines the movement of all other capitals. This does not mean the overcoming of the contradictions within the bourgeois front, but their reappearance in different forms: now the principle inter-capitalist contradiction is not that between national capitals (so between national spaces and national bourgeoisies), but that between the big multinational groups (which vertically divide the imperialist bourgeoisie).

This does not negate, the existence also, of contradictions between the various capitalist “nations”, or between monopolist and non-monopolist capital, but we think that these contradictions are essentially the reflection of much more profound contradictions between multinational groups. In fact, the various national areas now survive as rear areas for the multinationals: for every multinational the national area in which it originated and has developed, is its “strong point”, the zone where it enjoys almost undisputed monopoly status. When we discuss the multinationals, it is always implicitly the “multinational with a national pole” and that’s why we use the at first sight contradictory expression “American, German etc, multinational”.

Non-monopolist capital, in organic dependence upon the monopolies, certainly subsists with them in a contradictory unity, but obviously lacks the potential and material force to produce a political expression of this contradiction in the form of a rupture within the imperialist front. The imperialism of the multinationals presents itself as a global system of domination in which the various “national capitalisms” are simply its organic articulations, and the diverse “national areas” exist as geographical expressions determined from the international division of labor.

We can therefore make one initial point. In any national area the proletariat is not dealing with the “national bourgeois” but with a local articulation of the imperialist bourgeois. This also gives the class struggle of the proletariat in the metropole, the character of an anti-imperialist struggle and therefore more generally that of a REVOLUTIONARY CLASS WAR. In the metropole this is also immediately PROTRACTED ANTI-IMPERIALIST LIBERATION WAR.

As we have seen, the imperialist chain remains characterized by its uneven development, which manifests itself in everyone of its links, via the specificity of their socio-economic formations (relations between the dominant multinational capitals and the capitals of the “pole”, between monopolist and non-monopolist capital, between the “domestic” imperialist bourgeois and the proletariat), therefore the class struggle, although it has a strategic homogeneity in content and perspective, it is still presented in the most beneficial form and with the most appropriate timing in accordance with the diverse national areas.