Imperialism: The Common Enemy

This essay is reproduced here as it appeared in the print edition of the original Science for the People magazine. These web-formatted archives are preserved complete with typographical errors and available for reference and educational and activist use. Scanned PDFs of the back issues can be browsed by headline at the website for the 2014 SftP conference held at UMass-Amherst. For more information or to support the project, email

Imperialism: the Common Enemy

by Purr McEwen

‘Science for the People’ Vol. 7, No. 4, July 1975, p. 6 – 13

With recent victories in Indochina and struggles for liberation around the world gaining strength and momentum, one can’t help but look for a common element to link these struggles together. Imperialism is often recognized as an exploitative force in the Third World, but little is understood about the effects of imperialism here at home. Before we can combat imperialism systematically we must recognize that it is a total system that pervades and dominates all aspects of human life. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism; thus in the epoch of imperialism all the fundamental contradictions of capitalism reach their final limits, are sharpened to the utmost degree, and the capitalist system becomes a hindrance to the further development of society. For example, under all forms of capitalism, individual enterprises, individual branches of industry, even individual countries and areas within these countries develop unevenly and spasmodically. This is necessarily the case, because the capitalists are concerned only with profit, therefore, those investments that return a high rate of profit will be developed (e.g., the auto industry vs. mass transit). But during the imperialist stage of capitalism this law of uneven development becomes intensified and is spread throughout the world.1

This article uses Lenin’s study of imperialism (Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism) in order to analyze modem day American imperialism. Lenin shows that imperialism is a new stage in the development of capitalism, but this new stage is the direct continuation of the previous stage—competitive industrial capitalism. The internal contradictions inherent in competitive industrial capitalism—the contradiction between the two decisive classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the competition between capitalists, the law of uneven development, the crisis of overproduction—do not disappear with imperialism, but on the contrary, they evolve to their highest degree.

There are now available many other works on this subject, but I recommend that interested readers begin by reading Lenin. Although this work may be out of date in a few particulars the main points of his work are as true today as when he wrote them.

Lenin defines imperialism by pointing out its five main features:

  1. the concentration of production and capital developed to such a stage that it creates monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
  2. the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital” of a financial oligarchy;
  3. the export of capital, which has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities;
  4. the formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves;
  5. the territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers.

I. Monopolies

Monopoly rule, which penetrates the entire economic and political life in capitalist countries, is the fundamental attribute of imperialism. It is this predominance of monopoly which permeates every aspect of life in the era of imperialism. 

Although the term monopoly has practically become a household word in American society, many people view it is an isolated phenomenon in the complex economic picture of capitalism. We have all talked about oil cartels and price-fixing but too often this is only seen as an abberation of “free enterprise”, instead of an inevitable development of capitalism.

In the progression of American capitalism from its earlier form (in which free enterprise and the competitiveness of the individual capitalist were the main characteristics) to the modem form of monopolies, the concentration and centralization of capital played the crucial role. The concentration of capital (i.e., concentration of labor, raw materials, machinery and power in the factory) leads to larger and larger Units of capital to finance the growing size of the productive unit and all the auxiliary services which they require. This concentration of production gave the large industries a big advantage over their smaller rivals, for the greater the number of units manufactured, the lower the fixed cost of the price per unit, thus increasing the rate of profit. Just as in concentration, centralization of capital is yet another way in which the capital of the individual capitalist grows. The big capitalist swallows up his smaller and weaker competitors by buying their properties at considerably less than their value or by joining them to his own enterprise by some other means (e.g. payment of debts). Thus centralization of capital is the term given to all cases of the merging of capital by the joining of several enterprises into one. It is important to note at this point that the concentration and centralization of capital is not an option which a particular capitalist may or may not choose; rather it is a necessity for survival. Competition itself implies a contest in which there are winners and losers. The necessity for expansion, for reinvestment of profit, for the “capturing” of the market, leads to the uneven development of groups of firms in the same market whether it be the commodity market or capital market. Thus concentration itself is a trend, present from the very inception of capitalism.

The concentration and centralization of capital amasses vast amounts of wealth in the hands of a few persons and opens the way for the creation of tremendous enterprises.

The enormous growth of industry and the remarkable rapid process of concentration of production in ever larger enterprises represent one of the most characteristic features of capitalism… at a certain stage of its development, concentration itself, as it were, leads right to monopoly; for a score or so of the giant enterprises can easily arrive at an agreement, while on the other hand, the difficulty of competition and the tendency towards monopoly is one of the most important—if not the most important—phenomena of modern capitalist economy.2

Within the last ten years, monopolies have grown so fast that their combined total sales exceed the gross national product of every country except the United States and the Soviet Union. To give an idea of the concentration of profits in the monopolies, consider the following: there are approximately 200,000 industrial corporations in the U.S.; one hundred of them own half of all the manufacturing assets in the country; in 1968, one quarter of one percent of these 200,000 corporations earned nearly 75% of the total profit earned by all 200,000. To break it down even further, the top ten industrial corporations earned more than 22% of all the profits earned by all the industrial corporations. In other words, for every million dollars profit earned by all of the other corporations, each of the top ten corporations earned $5 billion!3

II. Finance Capital

Banks deal in money capital; they take capital from those capitalists who cannot for the moment make use of their capital, and give capital to those capitalists who need it at the moment. Thus, the bank collects all kinds of income and places it at the disposal of the capitalists. Just as industry strives for concentration and centralization so too does its financial counterpart. Their size and turnover continually increase and they accumulate tremendous amounts of capital. To show the extent of this:

There are more than 13,000 commercial banks in the United States. In 1960 the top fifty banks had 39% of all the commercial bank assets; and by 1970, these same fifty banks had 48% of all assets; In 1971 banks had $577 billion in corporate securities in their own portfolios, and had control of an additional $336 billion in trust funds—together almost a trillion dollars in assets.4

The laws of concentration and centralization are manifested with considerable force in banking. In the biggest capitalist countries a small number of the largest banks control the entire network of banking. The other banks are either practically subsidiaries of these giants or they play an insignificant role. These giant banks are closely welded to the monopolist industries. In fact, a merging or fusion of bank and industrial capital is taking place.5 Bank capital fused together with industrial capital is called finance capital. This consolidation of bank capital with industrial monopolies is one of the distinctive attributes of imperialism.

At the end of 1967, according to Representative Wright Patman’s Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, the top forty-nine banks had a five percent or greater share in a hundred and forty-seven—nearly a third—of the top five hundred industrials, and a five percent interest or more in seventeen of the top fifty transportation and merchandising companies. (It’s been shown that five percent ownership, plus the presence of interlocking directorates, gives one virtual control of a large concern)… By examining interlocking directorates of leading American banks, the economist Peter Dooley has identified some of the major financial groups in the United States. A group, in this sense, is a collection of nominally separate corporations that pool their resources to enhance their power. By far the most powerful is the Rockefeller-Morgan group. The power base of this group is made up of six of the country’s largest banks—Chase Manhattan, of which David Rockefeller is chairman, First National City Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust; Chemical Bank of New York; Morgan Guaranty Trust; and Bankers Trust.6

The merging of bank capital with industrial capital brings about a situation where the biggest bankers begin to manage industry and the biggest industrialists are admitted into the bank directorates. The fate of the capitalist world lies in the hands of a small group of bankers and industrial monopolists.

III. The Export of Capital

“Under the old capitalism, when free competition prevailed. the export of goods was the most typical feature. Under modem capitalism, when monopolies prevail, the export of capital has become the typical feature.”7  Lenin shows that the necessity for exporting capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has become “overripe” and thus capitalists cannot find profitable investment. In Marxian terms this is known as the crisis of overproduction, whereby the capitalists attempt to maximize their profits by producing more goods at a lower cost and inflating prices, but without a complementary increase in the standard of living (e.g. raising workers’ salaries). Since the workers produce more than the value of their salaries (i.e. producing surplus value) they cannot afford to buy all of the goods they’ve produced. The monopolist has to look overseas to sell these surplus goods, as well as looking for opportunities to invest his enormous profits. High tariff walls make the exporting of surplus goods less  attractive than direct investment in these markets. Also because of monopolization, the investment opportunities at home for their surplus capital are not as attractive as direct investments overseas where the rate of profit is higher due to low wages and cheap resources. 

As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will never be utilized for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists; it will be used for the purpose of increasing those profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries. In these backward countries profits are usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land low, wages low, and raw materials cheap.8

Although, under imperialism, the export of capital comes to the fore, this does not mean that the export of goods becomes less or loses its significance. The fact of the matter is that the export of capital is closely linked with the shipment of tremendous masses of goods. If, for example, the U.S. exports capital to Argentina, it means that enterprises whose stock is purchased by American capitalists are organized there. One can be sure that the greater part of the equipment and machinery for these enterprises will be imported from the U.S. 

The profits to be made in Third World countries are even larger than those made by investments in developed countries.9 Studies have shown that the reported minimum rate of profit of U.S. corporations in Latin America was approximately 40%.10

In 1970 the top 298 international corporations with headquarters in the U.S. earned about one third of their net profits outside the country, a study made by the Department of Commerce in 1972 showed. And a study in the same year by Business International showed that in 1971, 122 of the top American-based multinationals had a higher rate of profit from operations abroad than from domestic operations.11

In the Third World the raw material sector continues to outweigh the manufacturing sector in importance. In 1970–1971 raw materials represented 51% of total U.S. direct investments in these areas, 74% of total profits, 82% of all repatriated profits, and 62% of all new investments.12 There has been much debate about the direction of capital flows in the Third World.13 It appears that because of the predominance of investments in the resource sector, which produces a very high rate of profit, and in some cases the use of local capital for investment, the multinationals repatriate more profits back to the U.S. than they invest in these areas.

Since WWII American capital has been exported in greater amounts to the developed countries of Europe and Canada where it’s been used to buy up manufacturing in these areas. The super-profits extracted from the Third World countries have been used to produce an aristocracy of labor, raising the wages, increasing the benefits and stabilizing the employment (often through exclusionary practices) of a small section of the working class. Institutionalization of these priviliges typically occurs through craft unions, the development of a layer of reactionary labor bureaucrats, and the formation of “Social Democratic” governments. But it would be wrong to assume that this privileged stratum of the class has long-term stability. They are exploited, and under conditions of crisis are often thrown from their pedestals of privilege. Thus, for example, the high-paid construction equipment operators of the exclusionary, white-only craft unions in today’s crisis are finding themselves alongside unskilled and Third World workers in the unemployment line. Of course, since imperialism not only drives all workers down, but also attacks other classes in its crises, there are engineers, lower level government bureaucrats, and teachers in the unemployment lines as well. 

IV. Ripping Off the Third World

Amazingly enough most of the Third World countries that the U.S. calls poor have great untapped indigenous wealth. One of the reasons they are dominated is due to this wealth of natural resources (the other is the necessity to export capital). For example, Latin America is more highly cultivable and has a better high yield tropical soil than any other continent. It has three times as much agricultural land, per capita, as Asia, the biggest reserves of timber in the world, and uncalculated amounts of oil, iron, copper, tin, gold, zinc, lead, etc. The natural wealth of Third World countries can be deduced from the huge amounts of agricultural products and raw materials- that are extracted from these lands by foreign corporations. 

Not only are the imperialists extracting large amounts of resources from the Third World, but they are also decreasing the prices of these exports, so that the Third World countries must export more resources to import less goods. For example, half of Malaya’s exports are rubber; between 1960 and 1961 rubber exports increased by 4% while their value fell 35%. One half of Brazil’s exports are coffee; between 1953 and 1961 Brazil’s coffee exports increased in volume by 90% but the revenue earned by these exports dropped by 35%. The effects of these deteriorating terms of trade in concrete terms means that a tractor which would have cost Brazil 165 bags of coffee in 1960 actually cost 316 bags in 1969.14

One defense an imperialist might give is that they are providing jobs in Third World countries, which wouldn’t be there without their investments. Even this is not the case, for in the last decade or so, capital-intensive industry (as opposed to labor-intensive) has been shifted to the Third World. A recent study of 257 manufacturing corporations throughout Latin America shows that global corporations use only half the number of employees per $10,000 of sale as do local companies. And from 1925 to 1970 the percentage of the Latin American workforce employed in manufacturing actually decreased.15

On the agricultural side, the picture is just as bleak for the people in the Third World. In Iran some 17,000 Iranian farmers were displaced from their land when the Shah leased hundreds of thousands of acres of newly irrigated land to multinational agribusiness, such as Shellcott and Hawaiian Agronomics.16 In the Sahelian region of Africa (an area below the Sahara), where drought and famine are rampant, the Transnational Institute in Washington reported that thousands of the best acres and a large share of the already scarce water resources are assigned by the multinational agribusiness corporations to the production, not of foodstuffs for the native population, but of raw materials and other products for marketing in the developed world.17

Imperialist domination of the Third World results in repatriation of super-profits, extraction of large amounts of resources, declining terms of trade, rising unemployment, uneven development of these economies, etc. Thus it is not hard to see how this domination severely weakens the exploited countries’ economy. When this happens, the American government is more than happy to step in with “beneficial” foreign aid, and loans from American controlled international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Most economic aid to Third World countries is in the form of loans rather than grants. These loans are not the altruistic gesture that they are presented as being, but are yet another way that the imperialists continue the impoverishment of these countries and keep them under their control. Foreign aid is used by the United States in basically four ways:

  1. to implement the world-wide military and political policies of the U.S.;
  2. to enforce the open-door policy: for freedom of access to raw materials, trade, and investment opportunities for U.S. business;
  3. to insure that such economic development as does take place in the Third World is firmly rooted in capitalist ways and practices;
  4. to provide a substantial and immediate market for U.S. goods and services18 

For example, in Latin America from 1962 to 1966 the average annual service payments on the external public debts of all Latin America was $1,596 million. But during these same years, the average annual “assistance”, was only $1,213 million. Thus the economic assistance did not even cover the debt service requirements.19

One might wonder why a country continues to borrow money? Why isn’t the borrowed money being used to develop the country so that there will be enough money to pay off the debt? An important factor to consider in answering these questions is that debts must be paid back with the same kind of currency that was borrowed. Thus even if the borrowed money helps to create internal growth, the debt can not be repaid unless there are enough exports to get the needed foreign currency. If exports are not sufficient to raise the needed currency and also buy necessary imports. then pressure exists to make further loans. Because of the declining terms of trade, revenue from exports is decreasing, while their overall debt is becoming greater (A United Nations study estimated that Third World countries had lost $13,388 million in the period 1961–1966 because of declining terms of trade. This figure represents almost 40% of the total economic aid given by all the developed countries during this period.20

When this process comes to a head, bankers can reschedule the loan; but, of course, this doesn’t happen without new strings attached. The debtor country must follow the “orthodox” economics imposed on them by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This means that debt-servicing and a balanced budget comes before economic growth, which forces the country to cut their federal budget and devalue their currency. The victims of such measures are, of course, not the wealthy elite, but the masses of poor. 

V. Dividing Up the World 

For centuries other countries have conquered their neighbors, and plundered their lands. It wasn’t until the rise of imperialism, though, that this process was intensified and became world wide. From 1876 to 1914 the developed imperialist powers seized about 25,000,000 square kilometers of land; an area twice the size of Europe.21 Most of the land fell to the old robbers — Great Britain and France. The younger robbers like Germany, Italy, etc. got only the leftovers.

 The fierce struggle for sales markets, for raw material markets, for markets for capital investments led to the division of the entire world among a few imperialists. When this division was completed, fights between the imperialists for a redivision of the globe were inevitable. Such struggles have inevitably led to armed conflicts, and to war (eg. WWI and WWII). 

But what of the former colonies in the Third World, is their situation any different today? Or is the domination they felt as colonies still plaguing them? 

The major imperialist powers have been ripping off the Third World for nearly a century, first through colonialism and then neocolonialism Colonialism is the system of “direct domination”, by means of a political power composed of elements foreign to the dominated people. Neocolonialism is the system or form of indirect domination, by a political power composed mainly or completely of native agents. Colonialism and neocolonialism are two distinct manifestations of essentially the same form, as maintained by Amilcar Cabral22: “Colonialism and neocolonialism are identical because the essential characteristic of imperialist domination remains the same: the negation of the historical process of the dominated people by means of violent usurpation of the freedom of development of the national productive forces.”23

In the last few years, there have been an increasing number of Third World countries struggling and winning their independence from imperialism and social imperialism.24 The struggle for national liberation can unite many classes under its banner; in some cases it can also unite members of the national bourgeoisie who are being restrained from expanding their capital by imperialism. The defeat of imperialism can then open the way for the struggle for socialism in these countries. Such a revolt must necessarily entail an intensification of the conditions of exploitation in the imperialist country. Intensification of exploitation is the only means by which capitalism can reverse the narrowing of its area of operation, which is bound to accelerate the revolt m the imperialist country. 

VI. The Common Enemy

In this article I have tried to show how imperialism is the main enemy of the peoples of the Third World. But what about here at home, is imperialism our enemy? 

It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific to single out “foreign policy” from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy. Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards violations of democracy, towards reaction. In this sense imperialism is indisputably the negation of democracy in general, of all democracy, and not just of one of its demands, national self-determination.25

Historically, imperialism has never existed simply as an economic system: it has always required the support of the state. Marx’s dictum that governments are the executive committee of the ruling class has never been so clearly evident as in the United States. The American government is dominated by the imperialists and the laws are devised to secure and enhance their dominance. This is all done in the name of great American democracy. Except in time of crisis, (when the facist form of imperialism rears its ugly head to full view) the normal political system of capitalism is bourgeois democracy. Although votes are the nominal source of political power, ownership of the means of production is the real power.

The rise of monopolies has intensified this plutocracy.26 During competitive capitalism the government was controlled by a broad coalition of merchants, plantation owners, capitalists, etc. But the concentration of capital also concentrates political power into fewer and fewer hands. The result (as post Watergate has helped reveal) is the wholesale violation of democratic rights for the vast majority of people. 

Part and parcel of the violation of democracy here at home is the violation of national self-determination. Third World peoples in this country not only experience a lack of democratic rights, but every aspect of their national development is suppressed, while Third World workers are superexploited. This oppression and exploitation are not caused by racism; on the contrary, racism, as an ideology, is caused by imperialism’s oppression and superexploitation of Third World peoples. 

Although ethnocentricism and chauvinism may be as old as human society, racism as an ideology is a comparatively new phenomena. Advances in science were used as the ideological rationalization of imperialist expansion and exploitation. With the advent of evolutionary theory, Social Darwinism developed; and with the discovery of the Mendelian laws of genetics, the eugenics movement arose. But were these theories simply the work of some crackpots and overly ambitious zealots? No, they were developed by members of the ruling class — e.g. Galton, or supported by members of this class. 

Those non-scientists who founded, financed or in other ways supported the eugenics movement from the early 1900’s onward were, almost to a person, wealthy businessmen, investors, and other representatives of the financial and ruling elite of America, at the time.27

Racism, like all ideologies, is rooted in material circumstances, mainly in the special oppression and superexploitation of Third World persons.28 Since labor is a commodity under capitalism to be bought and sold on the market as are all commodities, a person’s value is determined by the value of their labor. The devaluation of the labor of any category (and Third World workers are consistently superexploited) devalues all the members of this category. (Other examples are old persons and women.) The devalued labor is then put upon the market to compete with white labor and thus drives down its price. This increases the exploitation of white workers, who view the Third World workers as the cause of their growing exploitation. The resulting disunity inhibits collective action, further depressing wages of all workers, and enabling the capitalists to continue their superexploitation of the Third World workers.29

Just as imperialism perpetuates national oppression of Third World countries, it also perpetuates national oppression of Third World people here in the U.S. To understand why this oppression is similar, one needs to understand that certain groups form a nation. There are different formulations to determine on what basis they form a nation, but the general principles are very similar.30 One formulation presented by Abdul Alkalimat of the African liberation Support Committee states:

Black people in the U.S.A. constitute an oppressed nationality.

  1. We are an historically constituted, stable community partially because of our common condition as exploited workers and partially because of Black institutions and traditions.
  2. We share a common language with everybody else (except the regionally based Asian languages and Spanish), although slang and gulla have regional variations.
  3. We share a common territory of the USA, but it is not functionally contiguous with defensible borders or even for administrative purposes — it is as if we were on a series of urban and rural ghettoes (reservations like the South African Bantustans).
  4. We share a common economic life although it has more to do with our exploitation as wage-salary workers than a national market organized by the Black bourgeoisie.
  5. We have a psychological make-up manifested in a common culture based on our creative response to our condition but mostly organized, controlled, and defined by our oppressors.

Black people as a nationality are united by a national character and moulded by a common history of slavery, sharecropping, great migrations to the city and wage slavery in the plants. However, the dominant character of racism is how we are socially oppressed. There is almost not aspect of social life that does not clearly show the debilitating impact of racism — national oppression. Black people have been brutalized beyond the limits of a civilized society and represent the clearest example of the demonic abuse germane to the capitalist mode of production in its imperialist stage.31,32

As in struggles for national liberation in the Third World, many classes can be united around the struggle against imperialism in the Black nation. The unity of a great majority of the oppressed nation (ie, working class as well as petty bourgeois elements) though, does not preclude the class struggle within that nation. The working class should take the lead, for only the working class is in an objective position to fundamentally destroy capitalist relations and build a better society. 

Science for the People has consistently supported the struggles for national liberation in Indochina, Chile, and elsewhere. We’ve taken on the task of exposing the abuse of science by the monopoly capitalists. “Science is like a smoke-screen: while its force appears to be directed at the resolution of the most urgent problems of our peoples, it makes those problems more numerous. It covers up the social roots of ‘technical’ problems. In the rhetoric of harmony it enshrouds the reality of imperialism”.33

Not only have we exposed the ideology of IQ, overpopulation, health and safety, etc., but we have also sent material support to Indochina, helped build Puerto Rican Solidarity Day, organized against the Long Island Lighting Co., etc. we have been able to unite diverse people, those who were morally outraged, as well as those with a more coherent theory. But we have been reluctant to develop our understanding of theory and strategy for change. It’s time that we reverse this trend and begin to develop the theory and strategy we need. 

The goal of this article has been to show that imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, is a total system. It is in the very nature of this system to be parasitic, exploitative and oppressive both at home and abroad. It is the common enemy of many nations and many classes within these nations. 

With the recent blow to U.S. imperialism in Indochina, and the rising militancy and unity of Third World countries, exploitation and oppression are increasing here at home. We must continue to be consistently anti-imperialist, and oppose the new developments in repression and social control (used by the ruling class to maintain their position both here and abroad), oppose the segregationist movement (especially here in Boston) and all other manifestations of imperialism. It is our duty to develop further our theory and our strategy and to determine as Mao says, “Who are our friends? Who are our enemies?” In the struggle against imperialism objectively, we have many friends. 



>> Back to Vol. 7, No. 4 <<



  1. In this article I will only be dealing with American imperialism. Readers should be aware, though, that there are two super powers: the Soviet Union and the United States. The question of Soviet social imperialism is very important and needs more study. Although there are other imperialist countries i.e. Japan, West Germany, etc., at this time they are under U.S. domination.
  2. Lenin, V.I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, New York, International Publishers, 1939, pp. 16–17.
  3. Greene, F., The Enemy, New York, Vintage Books, 1971, p. 84.
  4. Barnet, R., Muller, R., “A Reporter At Large (Multinational Corporations-II),” The New Yorker, December 9, 1974, p. 102.
  5. There is some controversy around this point. Baran & Sweezy in Monopoly Capital put forth the position that monopoly corporations have pulled away from financial control, through reinvestment of profits and paying back their loans.
  6. Barnet, R., Muller, R., “A Reporter At Large (Multinational Corporations-II),” The New Yorker, December 9, 1974, p. 103.
  7. Op. Cit., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, p. 62.
  8. Ibid., p. 63.
  9. The book value of American foreign direct investment was $78 billion in 1970 and is likely to reach well over $100 billion today (Heilbroner, R., “None of Your Business”, New York Review of Books, March 20, 1975, p. 6.).
  10. Barnet, R., Muller, R., “A Reporter At Large (Multinational Corporations-I),” The New Yorker, December 2, 1974, p. 94.
  11. Ibid., p. 54.
  12. Szymanski, A., “Marxist Theory and International Capital Flows,” URPE, Vol. VI, no.3, Fall 1974, p. 39.
  13. For more information on this question read “Marxist Theory and International Capital Flows” by Al Szymanski, URPE Vol. VI, No. 3, Fall 1974.
  14. Toland, E., Fenton, T., McCulloch, L., “World Justice and Peace: A Radical Analysis of American Christians.” p, 3.
  15. Op. Cit., “A Reporter At Large (Multinational Corporations-I)”, p. 104.
  16. Fitzgerald, F., “Giving the Shah Everything He Wants,” Harpers Magazine, November, 1974, p. 28.
  17. Barrclough, G., “The Great World Crises I,” New York Review of Books, January 23, 1975, p. 24.
  18. Magdoff, H., The Age of Imperialism, New York, Monthly Review, 1969, p. 117.
  19. Ibid., p. 152.
  20. Ibid., p. 158.
  21. Op. Cit., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, p. 80.
  22. Amilcar Cabral, an African revolutionary leader formed and led the PAIGC (African Party for Independence of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde). He developed a revolutionary strategy based upon the study of material conditions in his own country, and led the armed struggle for liberation. Although he was assasinated by a Portugese agent in 1972, the PAIGC guided the people to victory, which contributed to the overthrow of the fascist regime in Portugal.
  23. Cabral, A., “Foundations and Objectives of National Liberation in Relation to Social Structure,” Liberation in Guinea, London, Stage I, 1969, p. 82.
  24. Socialism in words, imperialism in deeds.
  25. Lenin, V.I., “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism,” Lenin on the U.S., New York, International Publishers, 1970, p. 290.
  26. Government by the wealthy.
  27. Allen, G., “A History of Eugenics in the Class Struggle,” Science for the People, Vol. VII, no. 2, March, 1974, p. 35.
  28. At all occupational levels Blacks make considerably less than whites. Unemployment for minority workers has since WWII been approximately twice the level for whites. On all indicators both social and occupational, Blacks (all indications are that this applies to all Third World people in the U.S.) lag far behind whites.(Ehrich, H., “Selected Differences in the Life Chances of Black and White in the U.S.,” Research Group One, Report 17. also Mayer, Y., “The Position and Progress of Black America” New England Free Press. )
  29. Olivier, J., Lambert, L., Fox, H., “Behind the Boston Busing Crisis,” Science for the People, Vol. VII, no. 2, March, 1975, p. 40.
  30. For more information on this point see: “The National Question,” Stalin; Black Reconstruction, W.E. DuBois; The Negro Nation in America, Harry Haywood; “For Working Class Unity and Black Liberation,” October League.
  31. Alkalimat, A., “Toward the Ideological Unity of the A.L.S.C.: A Response to Criticisms of the A.L.S.C. Statement of Principles,” February 1974, pp. 51–52.
  32. Another example of a nation is the struggle of the Puerto Rican people. Theirs is a dual struggle, for the liberation of their nation and the national self-determination of their people in the U.S.
  33. Toward an Anti-Imperialist ScienceScience for the People, Vol. VII, no. 5, September, 1973, p. 18.