You are a well-known student and investigator active in the transformation of the modern world. I think you're more geo-economic than geopolitics, but they're connected.
– I would alternatively say that I am curious in geopolitical economics, that is, at the same time economics and politics, due to the fact that they combine, they cannot be separated, separated.
You mention modern imperialism, on which you have published many analyses and articles. What do you think of Rosa Luxembourg and her investigation on imperialism from the early twentieth century? Are they inactive valuable?
– Well, imperialism was not only analysed by Rose Luxembourg. It started with Hobson and Hilferding, then Lenin, and of course Oswald Spengler besides mentioned him, who was not Marxist thinker, but wrote many interesting things about the fall and dusk of the West. In his celebrated book, he stated that the West had become imperialistic. Politics became imperialistic even before the reflections of these thinkers. The declared imperialist was Cecil Rhodes, whom he even quoted in his celebrated work on imperialism as Lenin's highest phase capitalism. He claimed that imperialist politics must be pursued to support the English working class, rise the standard of living, prevent unemployment and make opportunities for full employment. Cecil Rhodes spoke openly – although he may not have utilized the exact terms, but the point was that England must exploit Africa in order to finance its own working class. Of course, the intent of this uplift was to keep the capitalist class in power. What I'm trying to say is that over the past fewer decades, alleged Marxist left and the full left has forgotten that capitalism should be considered imperialism. And that's imperialism. It is not simply capitalism that can manifest itself as a state of prosperity, a Scandinavian model, etc. This is imperialism, which may show its better face in the West, but its essence remains unchanged. It is even more violent. Just look at the Global South. Unfortunately, the mediate class in Europe, a insignificant bourgeoisie, which includes professors like me, functions at specified a standard of surviving that it is incapable to realize that this level is not universal in the planet and the vast majority of the planet belongs to the Global South, where the exploitation by central capital has had the most deplorable effects in terms of the standard of surviving of people and opportunities for technological and industrial development.
Let's play any futuristic visions. If we look at today's capitalism and its imperialistic character, we will see many entrepreneurs there, the most modern ones, from the IT sector. For example, we have Elon the Musk dreaming of capturing Mars, possibly another planets, of exploiting space resources. Do you think that technological improvement can lead to capitalism focusing on these fresh areas – space or virtual space, alternatively than on exploiting the Global South and dependent countries undergoing neocolonization? Could this be the trajectory of capitalism?
– That's a very interesting question. However, I believe that reality indicates that the era of capitalism is ending. Of course, its definitive dusk will take place in the long-term historical perspective, but we can already see that it is simply a force coming off the phase – industrially, technologically, ideologically, in the sphere of model life, etc. It is no accident that China is the mill of the planet today. If we look at the situation from a military point of view, for example in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, we will besides announcement that even in terms of military technologies The West is no longer leading due to the fact that China and Russia take its place, and in any areas, in peculiar sectors, specified as drones, besides another countries. Capitalism cannot last without the Global South. His fall besides involves a fall in the profit rate. The tendency to decrease the profit rate has been noted and described by Marx. It is simply a logical and inevitable direction for the improvement of capitalism and is linked precisely to what you said: technological development. The profit rate comes exclusively from the workforce, and capitalists, not wanting to spend money, replace the labour force with human machines. They aim for automation. But as a consequence of this automation, the share of human labour in the production process falls, leading to a decrease in profit, as the added value, an additional value can only come from the human workforce.
So if we examine very complex statistical data and look at quite a few reliable analyses of this problem, we see that a decrease in the profit rate is already a trend. This will end with the fact that humanity will no longer request capitalism, due to the fact that machines will besides take care of the work done by intellectual workers. The capitalists will become expendable, we won't request them anymore. Of course, this will only happen in the future, but you just asked me about my future forecast. It'll take a long time. Let us not forget, however, that historical improvement is simply a process that begins very slow and then accelerates. improvement is exponential. Let's look at China, for example. In the first decades since the start of Deng Xiaoping reforms, their improvement was not besides great, or at least it was not besides noticeable to the remainder of the world. present we hear about fresh inventions, about the next technological breakthrough, about China's cooperation with different countries, about the increasing exports, about the launch of major infrastructure projects and so on. We are so dealing with an accelerated improvement of the Chinese model of communism or socialism. You can't see that improvement in the West. All we see in the West is another riot and a emergence in debt. We have a process of militarization. I cannot realize those who enjoy this militarization. We can surely say that most people in the West do not want any war.
In the meantime, it is sought by leaders representing the interests of the capitalist, imperialist and financial classes. It is said that the American military-industrial complex is simply a real centre of power over the United States. It defines the form of the deep state. What's a deep state? It's not any group of bad people. These are the interests of the military-industrial complex. Of course, its representatives represent only a tiny number of society, but they are the ones in power. The common feature of modern states is that this ruling class influences politics, shapes politics, and the political class serves the interests of the ruling class due to the fact that the ruling class pays it for it. They make money. Besides, we are dealing with the dominance of the ruling class idea. It can so be said that the present situation is that the Western European nations and east Europe have become hostages of the political class, which in turn serves the interests of the failing ruling class, or financial capital.
You have raised a very crucial issue. Currently, we are talking, at least in Poland, about raising spending on upgrading the armed forces, buying fresh weapons, primarily produced by the American military-industrial complex, which you mentioned. We have a gigantic European SAFE programme, in which we are to spend about EUR 200 billion. Of course, this involves an additional increase in the debt of the associate States. any European economists are starting to talk about alleged militaristic keynesism. Do you think that these arms spending can at least temporarily keep the European model of capitalism alive? Can they prolong his existence?
– That's another very good question. This militarization reminds me of Nazi German politics. Looking at what neoliberalism leads to, any say that we are dealing with a fresh kind of Fascism. Militaryization is not an effective way to save this system. Militaryisation always means that resources are wasted that could, after all, be utilized to rise the standard of surviving of the population. That's one. Secondly, the regulation is that each political strategy aims to gain its own defence. Also, from this point of view, I realize that they want to have a strong army, due to the fact that they feel that there is no way to save them, there is no way to preserve their power. They think only the military, the divisions, the war, the reinforcements can aid them. Of course, that's not true. The military is no longer specified a force and will not be specified a force. Besides, its expansion takes time. During this time, Russia, China and the Global South will besides make their military potential. All of this means escalation. This is why we are rightly afraid that this will lead to planet War III. The capitalist strategy will not save specified a war. He'll lose to a mole, but hundreds of millions of people will die. Also, what they are doing now is no joke, and we can only hope that sooner or later the working class of the West will realize what is happening and that it must take action to change this policy. However, we cannot be entirely certain of that. There may be a single imperialist front, but imperialism is weakening.
Look not only at China or Russia, but at the Francophone countries in the west and south of Africa – Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, even Chad. They told the French to get out. That they've had adequate of them, thank you and goodbye. That they no longer request their troops that gave them nothing. That they no longer want the French to mine their natural resources, like gold, diamonds, etc. They can mine themselves, as can uranium for atomic power plants. They can do all this on their own and work with China and Russia. The division of the planet is so being blurred, and this means that the working class of Western European imperialist countries cannot be paid as advanced as it has been. Wages fall and differentiation between higher and lower segments of the working class increases. More and more people feel ruined. Their standard of surviving is falling, their wages are falling. We besides have immigration, which further strengthens interior contradictions and tensions in society. We've got a number of those that are buzzing under the surface of tension. We're starting to announcement these tensions more or less. They can scope the climax and lead to an explosion.
Are Hungary, Poland and another countries of Central Europe more or little in the same situation? For example, I have analysed economical dependence and influences in the economy of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and everywhere we have a dependence on the German economy, especially as regards the industry, for example the automotive industry. Do you think that we have the possible in Central Europe to become independent of Western economies, especially German economies, which, as we see, is in crisis? Is disaster inevitable, or can we avoid it by freeing ourselves from influence and dependence on the West?
Yes. Our boat is firmly attached to the sinking ship. This sinking ship is the European Union, which irreparably sinks underwater. What he has been doing since 2010, since the beginning of the Fidesz party's rule, the Hungarian government, gives hope. He began to diversify global relations and global economical relations. He announced an beginning policy for the East and the South. The Neolibers were mocking it. In the meantime, it is simply a very realistic policy, which is essential to preserve sovereignty. In BRICS nobody asks others about their socio-economic model or political system. They're just asking if anyone wants to work with them or not. The only condition for membership or partnership with BRICS is not to apply sanctions. Can we leave this EU sinking ship? That's a good question. Firstly, I think we should leave NATO, which is simply a military institution of imperialism. We should improve, make our relations with another countries – China, Russia, Africa. Africa will make rapidly in the coming decades. Remember, as I said, improvement is exponential.
At first it may seem that we are not dealing with anything groundbreaking, but sooner or later this improvement is accelerating. That's what smart politics should look like. Waiting for the break-up of the European Union, which will gradually lead to the weakening of Brussels' power, while enjoying the free marketplace and economical relations within it, is simply a good solution. This is how China, BRICS and the Global South approach it. The problem, however, is that we have the political governance of Brussels, by which it tries to impose a peculiar policy, to point to certain traditions and values, to what our attitude towards sex is to be, etc. This is simply a serious problem. The first step, therefore, is to change its centralised political power. I hope it gets there, or we're gonna have an explosion. The European Union in its present form is unsustainable, due to the fact that it is based solely on coercion. Hungary is in the vanguard present and must bear all these costs of its policy, the costs of cutting EU funds for them...
Yeah, all that pressure.
Yes, that's right, pressure. However, there are besides different political forces in another countries, including your country. There are specified forces in France, Italy. These political forces support Hungarian policy. We see the ruling forces trying to limit their influence in Germany, in France – how they are being repressed, how they are prevented from participating in elections. Nevertheless, more and more people support them. Let us so hope that there will be a change of policy in the following countries, followed by a different Brussels policy. The Hungarian Prime Minister frequently says that we will occupy Brussels. We will see what happens, but 1 thing is certain: the European Union is going to fall. Incidentally, Oswald Spengler has already spoken of the fall of the West. This is simply a gradual process due to the fact that it was written about it in the early 20th century. On the another hand, Samir Amin besides wrote about him in 1970. Since then, the West has reached adequate age as it itself has described. That's what we see now.
So we have a decaying strategy that no longer has power, no innovation, nothing admirable. Of course, the ruling class inactive controls the masses among the bourgeoisie, among the aristocracy of the working class, among the intelligence. He pays for it, and that's adequate to keep most of it. Of course, there are inactive people on the side of the strategy who are curious in continuing with the present, but the increasing part of societies is turning distant from this policy and seeking another solutions. For example, an alternate to Germany in Germany, which is termed fascist, although it has nothing to do with Fascism. However, this description is frequently utilized for all those who criticise liberal and free marketplace policies. In conclusion, we can say that there is any hope on the 1 hand, but there is inactive a hazard of a large catastrophe, and even the outbreak of planet War III.
While remaining in the diversification of Hungarian trade and abroad policy – are there any discussions on Hungary's accession to BRICS in the future among political scientists, economists or politicians in Hungary? Do you even talk about it?
No, I'm afraid not. There's no point, though I think he should show up. It may come erstwhile life in the European Union becomes unbearable, but not yet. No one's talking about BRICS. possibly someone's already starting to think like that. We are working together as part of the initiative of 1 Road – 1 Road with China, in the form of a railway connection from Budapest to Belgrade. Hungary besides participated in the summit of the 1 Road initiative last year. We were the only country in the European Union. partially this is covered by BRICS, due to the fact that there are China and many countries of the 1 Road to BRICS or partnerships with BRICS. But technically it's not BRICS yet.
In Poland, many people with leftist views claim that the Hungarian government is an utmost right and so constantly criticises it. What do Marxists, socialists and left-wing intellectuals in Hungary think about the current government? What are the most crucial advantages of the current government?
– It's a very complex issue. The overwhelming majority of left-wing Marxists, socialists, social democratic intelligence, and even civilian organizations are acting against this right-wing government in a full way. Many of them mention to this government as fascist. However, I see a slight evolution of these utmost opinions towards a more realistic approach. Firstly, there are inactive very fewer people who say that this is not fascist power, but I see an expanding number of specified assessments. They point out that they are not going to vote for the current power, but it is not a fascist government. They think that's an exaggeration. This is not a fascist government. There are besides those who believe that the policy of the current government suits them, but refuse to vote for it, due to the fact that they think it is simply a right-wing, anti-communist, clerical, nationalist, etc. For any Marxists, Leninists or conventional leftist representatives, raising the issue of sovereignty is synonymous with nationalism, this negative nationalism in the xenophobic edition. They do not separate between different forms of nationalism. They are incapable to realize that patriotism is simply a kind of nationalism, but not xenophobic. On the contrary, specified nationalism can be very inclusive. I love my country and accept the Roma and all the another nationalities and cultural groups that live here.
Secondly, sovereignty is now the most crucial issue. The most crucial nonsubjective present is to keep sovereignty, especially in the face of a situation where we are bound by the European Union and forced by it to support imperialist policies. The fight for sovereignty should so stand first. What is it? The most crucial thing is to support, defend a policy that advocates sovereignty. This is about sovereignty in the face of imperialism. It is actual that our government is not completely sovereign, it does not lead politics to the end of sovereignty. No political force would be able to do this due to the fact that we are integrated into the environment: we are firmly integrated into the architecture of the superstructure of imperialism. Under these conditions, it is possible to loosen any existing ties at most, and this government is doing so. I am in a very hard situation due to the fact that many of my friends say that I betrayed the left, abandoned the Marxist position, the position on the working class, etc. But that's not true, and it's not just the business of the working class itself. It's besides about farmers' interests, intelligence. My God, this is about the interests of the full nation – to be sovereign and able to last not only the coming decades, but millennia. Therefore, the situation of people like me on the left is hard in Hungary. I support the government due to its abroad policy, geopolitics. In addition, it has a low social policy. We have problems in this area, of course, but the situation is truly not so bad erstwhile it comes to poorness in Hungary. In my opinion, there are now secondary issues. Hungary is not at all the worst in this respect and it is not in Europe's tail. On many issues, specified as pro-family policy, Hungary is simply a leader alongside Poland. We have a somewhat akin policy towards families and their support.
We don't have a household policy as advanced as yours...
– All right, we're better.
Yeah. Thank you very much for this interview, and I would like to want you, Hungary and all the countries of our region – Central Europe – a more sovereign policy, because, as you have mentioned, this is the most crucial issue for all, regardless of the political disputes and backgrounds from which they originate. Sovereignty is the first and most crucial step. erstwhile it is achieved, we will be able to argue about the direction of further development.
– That's it. I agree.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Prof. Annamaria Artner – Hungarian economist, associate of Hungarian Academy of Sciences. presently employed at the ELTE Institute of planet Economy in Budapest, she lectures economics and global economical relations, the author of respective twelve technological papers.
Think Poland, No. 45-46 (9-16.11.2025)
