The “Pyramid Theory” of the KKE – A revisionist laughingstock

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) created a theory in March 2013 under their former General Secretary Alexandra Papariga which became famous as the “pyramid theory” of imperialism. This theory was elaborated in an article for the ideological periodical “El Machete” of the Communist Party of Mexico titled “On Imperialism – The Imperialist Pyramid”.

The “Pyramid Theory” is an ivory tower theory

The “pyramid theory” is revisionist. Why so? According to the pyramid theory also African countries like Uganda and Kenya, even wrecked countries like Congo, South Sudan and Somalia, would have imperialist ambitions. When looking at the economic data, these countries, unlike India or Turkey for example, have no chance to breed an own national bourgeoisie of the size of monopoly companies under the conditions of dominance by foreign capital – be it from American, Chinese or Indian companies.

The excuse presented in the mentioned article is the following:

“The situation in Africa, in regions of Eurasia and the Middle East bear out the fact that all the capitalist countries are incorporated in the international imperialist system, irrespective of whether they have the ability to carry out their own expansionist political line.”¹

Of course, if an African colonial country like Uganda would have enough capital in the hands of their national bourgeoisie to form monopoly companies that are able to control the own native economy and expand abroad, Uganda could carry out an “own expansionist political line”. But the very try by the KKE to create an excuse for their wrong, revisionist theory is debunking the “pyramid theory” as a whole: If a capitalist country is able to pursue such a course, it obviously has the necessary conditions to be an imperialist country.

Joti Brar (Vice Chairperson of the CPGB-ML) polemized against it in an article in 2023: “This, we are told, goes as much for the capitalists of Burkina Faso as for the capitalists of the USA. Apparently, the desire to grow one’s capital reveals a desire to become an imperialist – and this desire is all that counts.”² This criticism is correct since the KKE’s focus on potential ambitions turned their “pyramid theory” into a mere ivory tower theory.

Lenin clearly wrote: “The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production.”³ This fact is what made imperialism possible. Equally developed countries could barely dominate each other. Papariga formally recognizes this theory of Lenin in her article, but in her practical conclusions she totally ignores it.

When this is what the KKE understands as a Marxist-Leninist imperialism analysis, then it is highly questionable if the KKE can be called rooted in Marxism-Leninism at all. The “pyramid theory” is not a mere misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Lenin’s imperialism theory, it is a visibly revisionist distortion.

A different approach to explain newly emerging imperialist countries

There is a different approach to explain the emergence of newcomers on the imperialist parquet, which makes far more sense. It is almost ironic that Stefan Engel from the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD) presented a better approach in 2017 despite being on a very dogmatic line based on wrong assumptions on various matters.

There were some semi-colonial countries able to turn imperialist due to the following economic basis:

“The fundamental precondition for the development of these domestic monopolies in a number of neocolonially dependent countries was the merging of capitalist large estates with industrial, bank and merchant capital. This included above all countries which, because of their socioeconomic conditions, attracted the special interest of international monopoly capital for its capital export. Most of them were large, resource-rich, populous countries characterized by relatively developed capitalist relations of production; they had a relatively well-developed infrastructure, a large labor potential, or the prerequisites for a growing market.”⁴

India⁵ and Turkey⁶ are described as examples for upcoming imperialist countries by Stefan Engel. On Indian imperialism Comrade Aulakh from Punjab wrote a solid analysis in 2024 which is recommendable to be read⁷. These two countries are the more obvious examples of newly imperialist countries. Both countries created a nationalized industry under Nehru and Atatürk as well as some of their successors and therefore were able to achieve a national development not completely independent from imperialist influence as capitalist countries, but to achieve the creation of national monopolies. Such regimes of the national bourgeoisie are always under the threat of turning into semi-colonies and even colonies again⁸ (as seen in Egypt after Nasser for example).

The mentioned conditions are explaining why not random “Third World” countries became imperialist but very specific ones. Stefan Engel correctly wrote: “The majority of the neocolonial countries were ruined. This went as far as the destruction of their independent industrial base and the breakup of numerous national states.”⁹ This is what also happened to Uganda under the NRM rule when becoming a Chinese and Indian colony.

The main criticism I have is that Stefan Engel uses the term “New-Imperialism” as a set term. In the German original he also uses “Neuimperialismus” instead of “neuer Imperialismus”, which would have a different connotation. The term “New-Imperialism” sounds like that there is a new quality in imperialism, which there is not, but just a new quantity: Newly emerging imperialist countries.

Also a specific criticism belongs to this claim: “For a while, Russia lost its imperialist character.”¹⁰ The MLPD usually overstresses the imperialist character of Russia but denies it for the 90s completely. Russia was in bad economic shape but still influential over the former Central Asian Soviet Republics which can be seen in the founding of the Shanghai Five in 1996: Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Those would form the Shanghai Cooperation Organization later in 2001. Therefore can be said: Russian imperialism was restored after the restoration of capitalism in the USSR in a very weak position but it was not nonexistent for a while.

Conclusion

We should regard the KKE’s pyramid theory as a ridiculous concept written by revisionists who never left their office desks in Athens and went out to survey the actual conditions in the world.

The “pyramid theory” became so famous among the international communist movement – among supporters as well critics – despite being effectively based on one single article only. That is a weak foundation of such an important ideological component that just one document is uncritically taken like a sacred text by its supporters. The supporters mostly come from imperialist countries themselves, which is no wonder. It is part of the process of social-democratization of the workers movement in the imperialist countries under the omnipresent influence of the bourgeois ideology as well the intellectualist separation of the communist party leaders from the working masses. Those intellectuals are not feeling the worst effects of capitalist exploitation – especially not in the countries dominated by imperialist powers. They are in fact careless.

The Greek revisionists have influence on opportunist and revisionist organizations and parties all over the West, including Germany. They will end up as dust heaps in history with their names written into a chronicle of treason to the working people. The Bible says: “Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”¹¹ We don’t have to fight their diehards, it would be a waste of time. They will fall by themselves. We just should prevent genuine comrades from getting their mind befogged by these revisionist fumes.