Marxism-Leninism on War and Army - Civil Wars for independence
WARS BETWEEN THE COLONIALISTS AND THE PEOPLES FIGHTING FOR THEIR INDEPENDENCE
Fyodorov
The revolutionary struggle of the working class for socialism is closely intertwined with the national liberation movement of the peoples in the colonial and dependent countries. “The socialist revolution,” Lenin said, “will not be solely, or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie—no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism." [115•1
The October Revolution in Russia ushered in a deep crisis of the whole colonial system of imperialism. It inflicted a heavy blow to the entire system of imperialist colonial rule and was a major stimulus to the development of the national liberation movement. A new powerful blow to colonial slavery was delivered also by the socialist revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries after the Second World War. Supported by the world socialist system, the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples for the complete 116elimination of the colonial system became an enormous motive force of historical progress. The colonial system capitalism had set up to oppress the peoples disintegrated in the conditions marked by the general weakening of imperialism, the emergence of the world socialist system, the powerful upsurge of the working-class and democratic movements, under the impact of the anti-imperialist and the national liberation revolutions. More than 70 independent national states emerged on the ruins of the former colonial world. “The breakdown of the system of colonial slavery under the impact of the national liberation movement is a development ranking second in historic importance only to the formation of the world socialist system." [116•1
Social Forces of the National Liberation Struggle
The revolutionary national liberation movement is a complex social process in which various anti-colonial forces emerge and interact This inevitably gives rise to antagonistic clashes between the interests of the various social and ethnic groups, classes and parties. In the course of the struggle for state independence and the solution of general national democratic tasks a union is formed by all patriotic forces of the nation—the proletariat, peasantry, national bourgeoisie and the democratic intelligentsia.
The working class of the colonies, which are economically poorly developed, is generally weak numerically and frequently insufficiently organised. Because of the colonial economy and the low level of the productive forces it has not yet become an independent political force in many African countries. There are as yet no conditions for proletarian leadership in them. National cadres of the working class form and their political role increases as these countries move towards economic independence and social progress. The semi-proletarian masses and the peasants consolidate round the working class. In some newly-free countries the workerpeasant alliance forms the nucleus of the national front; the behaviour of the bourgeoisie, which often plays the leading role in the national front, depends on the firmness of this alliance.
The peasantry holds an important place in the mass movement for national independence and social progress. Being the most numerous class, it determines the anti-feudal, general-democratic character of the revolutionary-liberation struggle. Without the revolutionary movement of the peasantry it is impossible to weed out the remnants and vestiges of feudalism. The toiling peasant masses form the powerful social basis for the formation of the revolutionary-democratic forces, under whose leadership the weakly developed countries can in modern conditions make the transition to the non-capitalist road of development.
The national bourgeoisie plays a major role in the liberation movement. It has great possibilities for fighting imperialism, its interests do not coincide with those of the foreign monopolies, and the policies they pursue. But it includes reactionary elements who endeavour to hold back the development of the liberation struggle. For this reason the policies of the national bourgeoisie are inconsistent and double-faced. It is afraid of a revolutionary upsurge of the popular masses and therefore apt to strike a deal with the imperialists. The national bourgeoisie can head the liberation movement only when the question of state independence is being decided. Later, as the anti-colonial struggle develops and the class contradictions aggravate in the country on the way to liberation, as the economic and political position of the bourgeoisie grows stronger, part of the bourgeoisie becomes ever more inclined to come to terms with the imperialists and domestic reactionaries.
The contradictory alignment of the social forces in the national liberation movement complicates the development of the newly-free countries. The conquest of state independence does not put an end to the revolutionary struggle. Life advances new problems linked with consolidating the sovereignty of the young national states. Political freedom will be unstable and become fiction if the revolution fails to introduce far-reaching changes in social and economic life, and does not resolve the vital problems of national revival.
The might of the world socialist system is a decisive factor in the struggle of the peoples in the colonies and dependent countries for their liberation from imperialist oppression. The socialist system has become a reliable bulwark on which the independent national development of newly-free countries and of dependent and backward peoples can rely.
Wars of Oppressed Peoples for State Independence
The contradictory nature of the social forces and the complexity of internal and external conditions are responsible for the variety of forms of the national liberation struggle. A special place is held in it by armed uprisings and wars The choice of the methods and forms of anti-colonial struggle does not depend on the will of the peoples, but on the degree of violence the colonialists use in their attempt to consolidate their rule.
Thus, for example, the rout of imperialist Japan freed the Vietnamese people from foreign invaders and enabled them to seize the state power. But the French colonialists resorted to open aggression against Vietnam, in which they were actively supported by the American imperialists. The Vietnamese people were compelled to wage a long armed struggle for independence (1946–1954). Their People’s Army gained victory in the northern part of the country and this enabled the Vietnamese people to embark on the building of socialist society there.
A similar situation developed in Indonesia after she was proclaimed a republic in August 1945. The imperialists of the USA, Britain and Holland decided to suppress the national liberation struggle of the Indonesian people by force of arms. At the end of 1945 British troops occupied several areas of the Island of Java and dealt cruelly with the local population. Dutch troops supported by the AngloAmerican imperialists twice mounted treacherous attacks against the Indonesian Republic (1947 and 1948). In reply to this the Indonesian people unleashed a revolutionary guerilla war against the invaders which ended in victory. Later, however, the ventures of foreign imperialist reactionaries, the action of the reactionary forces within the country, the adventuristic course of the Chinese splitters with respect to Indonesia and serious mistakes made by the Sukarno government in the domestic and foreign policy led to the loss by the Indonesian people of their hard-won socio-democratic gains.
The war in Malaya was also unleashed by the reactionary imperialist forces. The armed struggle began with the repressions against the people by the British troops and the declaration of martial law in the country (1948). A guerilla war against the British colonialists flared up throughout Malaya. 119In 1949 the guerilla detachments united into the Liberation Army under a single command. The people’s struggle was crowned with success: in 1957 Malaya became an independent state. However, Britain imposed upon Malaya a treaty according to which British military bases were to remain in the country.
A national liberation war is always a response to the oppression and violence of the colonialists. The colonial and neo-colonial policy of the imperialists was and remains the source of all popular uprisings and national liberation wars.
The imperialists endeavour to keep the former colonies in economic and social dependence, to impede their social and cultural progress. The peoples, however, do not intend to remain objects of imperialist exploitation.
The Communists have always recognised the progressive importance of liberation wars. The CPSU considers it its internationalist duty to help the peoples who are out to win and strengthen their national independence, to assist all peoples fighting for the complete destruction of the colonial system.
Anti-colonial national liberation wars include: a) the armed struggle of the oppressed peoples for their state independence and b) the wars of newly independent states against imperialist aggressors attempting to restore the colonial regime.
Anti-colonial wars of the first type directly continue the policies of the revolutionary national liberation movement spearheaded against the remnants of colonial slavery. Examples of such wars are the war of the Algerian people against the French colonialists (1954–1962), the struggle of the Kenyan people against the domination of the British imperialists (1952–1966), and the war the people of Angola are fighting against the Portuguese oppressors.
The national character of anti-colonial wars determines also the methods by which they are waged, the tactical forms assumed by mass uprisings and the patriotic struggle. Frederick Engels, observing the national liberation wars of his time, drew the conclusion that “a nation that wants to win independence must not confine itself to the use of conventional means of war. Mass uprisings, revolutionary war, guerillas everywhere—that is the only way by which a small people 120can cope with ... a big one”, [120•1 stand up against a stronger army.
National liberation wars, born of colonialism, generally begin with popular uprisings and the mass spread of the guerilla movement. This accelerates the formation of class consciousness ’among the working people, and helps to mobilise the champions of the struggle for freedom and independence. The active participation of the population keeps the guerilla movement alive; it is the main condition for ensuring the success of the revolutionary-liberation struggle.
Once that struggle has reached a definite stage, once strongholds have been set up in the country and the guerillas have been supplied with arms, there arises the task of forming a regular army, one able to extend the scale of military operations, which are to be combined with the operations of the guerilla detachments. Regular troops are able to choose more favourable conditions for their operations and to apply flexible manoeuvring tactics, and to wage large-scale offensive operations to rout the enemy. The distinctive methods of national liberation wars (the specific aims, special intensity of the forms and the variety of the methods applied in military operations, etc.) form in the course of the armed struggle.
Wars of the Newly Independent States Against Imperialist Aggressors
New sovereign states have emerged and continue to emerge in tne former colonies and semi-colonies. Many of them haye firmly stated their opposition to joining aggressive military blocs and are pursuing a consistently anti-colonial policy. Many others, however, depend on the foreign monopolies and have not yet broken loose from the world capitalist economy, even though they occupy a specific place in it. The struggle of the peoples of these countries for economic independence, for the removal of imperialist military bases and strongholds from their territories, etc., is growing increasingly important.
Conversely, the main efforts of the colonialists are aimed at keeping the peoples of anmlries that have freed themselves of colonial oppression within the framework of the capitalist world system. The policies of neo-colonialism are based on the imperialist striving after the economic enslavement of the countries that have won political independence. Imperialism was and continues to be the chief enemy of the young sovereign states and all dependent countries and the main obstacle to the solution of their general national tasks.
Alongside with the policy of wooing the national bourgeoisie in the newly independent states, the imperialists often attempt to intimidate these countries by military means. Such military conflicts as the aggression against Egypt, the armed intervention in the Lebanon, the plot against Syria and Laos and the aggression in South Vietnam broke out in connection with the imperialist attempts to prevent the national development of the young states by force of arms. The aggressive policies of the colonialists threaten peace and the security of the peoples not only in those countries or in separate regions, but on the entire planet.
The aggressive actions of the imperialists against Egypt are particularly characteristic in this respect. In 1956 the Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggressors wanted not only to seize the Suez Canal, but also to destroy the revolutionary achievements of the Egyptian people, to intimidate the peoples of all Arab countries striving for national revival.
The aggression against Egypt posed a serious threat to universal peace and security. The progressive forces therefore supported the struggle of the Egyptian people. The protest of the vast majority of countries and especially the firm stand of the Soviet Union forced the imperialists to cease fire and to withdraw their troops from Egyptian soil.
However, in June 1967 the Israeli militarists once again mounted an aggressive attack against the UAR and other Arab states. The USA and Britain, without whose encouragement the Israeli extremists would not have dared to start the war against the Arab peoples, are responsible for this aggression.
The national liberation struggle has become more difficult because nowadays it is opposed not by a single colonial power, but by a coalition of imperialist states. It is obvious that without such an alliance and without its support a country like Portugal, one of Europe’s weakly developed countries, would be unable to keep in subjugation her African colonies, whose territory and population are respectively 23 and 1.5 times as large as those of Portugal herself. The aggressiveness of some of the imperialist powers can be clearly seen in their repeated armed interventions in the internal affairs of the Congolese people. The aggressive intrigues of the imperialists are also directed against other African peoples who have recently won national independence, and against all South American peoples who are fighting for democratic freedom. This can be seen from the armed intervention of the USA in the domestic affairs of the Dominican Republic and other Latin American countries. “The events of the past decade have laid bare more forcefully than ever the nature of US imperialism as a world exploiter and gendarme, as the sworn enemy of liberation movements." [122•1
A particularly cynical manifestation of the aggressive policy of US imperialism is the US war in Vietnam. The aggressor wanted to suppress one of the socialist outposts in Asia by armed intervention, to deliver a blow to the national liberation movement, and to test the firmness of the proletarian solidarity of the socialist countries and of the working people of the world. However, the plans of the imperialists were foiled by the international solidarity and comprehensive assistance given to the Vietnamese people by the socialist countries, notably by the Soviet Union.
“The war in Vietnam is the most convincing proof of the contradiction between imperialism’s aggressive plans and its ability to put these plans into effect. In Vietnam US imperialism, the most powerful of the imperialist partners, is suffering defeat, and this is of historic significance." [122•2
Notes
[115•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 159.
[116•1] The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1963, p. 61.
[120•1] Marx/Engels, Wcrke, Bd. 6, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1959, S. 387.
[122•1] International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, p. 17.
[122•2] Ibid., p. 13.
.jpg)
