On the Defeatist stand in case of a war between Greece and Turkey
“The philistine” says Lenin “ does not realise that war is "the
continuation of policy", and consequently limits himself to the formula
that "the enemy has attacked us", "the enemy has invaded my
country", without stopping to think what issues are at stake in the war,
which classes are waging it, and with what political objects….For the
philistine the important thing is where the armies stand, who is winning at the
moment. For the Marxist the important thing is what issues are at stake in this
war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.” (1)
In some -progressive, anti-imperialist – wars the defense of fatherland slogan and attitude on that basis is the correct one, whereas in case of the wars between imperialists “The defense of the fatherland” slogan is all too often unconscious philistine justification of war and reveals inability to analyse the meaning and implications of a particular war and see it in historical perspective.” (1)
The socio-economic conditions
responsible for the emergence of wars, their political aims and the historical
role they play in the life of society are extremely manifold. “Wars,” Lenin
said, “are a supremely varied, diverse, complex thing. One cannot approach them
with a general pattern"—there must be a concrete analysis of every war.
Every military conflict, evolved by the contradictions existing in definite
historical conditions, has its specific features and differs from all others.
At the same time the fact that every military conflict has its own specific
features does not mean that all of them should not be given a social evaluation
in accordance with the class character and political aims of the belligerents. (2)
“Depending on the historical
circumstances, the relationship of classes, etc., the attitude to war must be different
at different times. It is absurd once and for all to renounce participation in
war in principle.” That’s why “for a Marxist clarifying the nature of the war
is a necessary preliminary for deciding the question of his attitude to it. But
for such a clarification it is essential, first and foremost, to establish the
objective conditions and concrete circumstances of the war in question. It is
necessary to consider the war in the historical environment in which it is
taking place, only then can one determine one’s attitude to it. Otherwise, the
resulting interpretation will be not materialist but eclectic.” (3)
For the most part (In Turkey) parties
and movements, disregarding the Marxist theory of uneven development, and its’
concrete proof in this given particular, still see Turkey as a semi-feudal,
semi-colony country. In fact, since 1990s, the monopoly capital in Turkey
concentrated heavily in the export to the newly emerged markets after the collapse
of Soviet Union. It reached a stage in its development of capitalism in where yielded
everything that capitalism can yield. Capitalism attained in Turkey its highest
form which the mainly no longer exporting commodities, but capital. Meaning
that the export did not remain to be the production but followed by the export of
capital – not only to the Balkans, Central Asia but including Africa. Last 20 years
Turkey has become an imperialist country to a degree that forced herself into
being one of the powers of the region in search of a lion share in the plunder.
A country that had an overseas
asset value of $53 Billion in 2000, tripled in 10 years to $ 186 Billion at
2010, and increased to $230 Billion in 2014. Accumulation of surplus capital by its nature requires
the export of capital and a competition in world market, which in return makes
it take up an aggressive policy.
“Imperialism” says Lenin, “is a
specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold:
imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund
capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental
economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism… Advancing this definition of
imperialism brings us into complete contradiction to K. Kautsky, who refuses to
regard imperialism as a “phase of capitalism” and defines it as a policy
“preferred” by finance capital, a tendency of “industrial” countries to annex
“agrarian” countries. Kautsky’s definition is thoroughly false from the
theoretical standpoint. What distinguishes imperialism is the rule not of
industrial capital, but of finance capital, the striving to annex not agrarian
countries, particularly, but every kind of country. Kautsky divorces
imperialist politics from imperialist economics, he divorces monopoly in
politics from monopoly in economics in order to pave the way for his vulgar
bourgeois reformism, such as “disarmament”, “ultra-imperialism” and similar
nonsense. The whole purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to
obscure the most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the
theory of “unity” with the apologists of imperialism, the outright
social-chauvinists and opportunists.” (4)
This development in return “leads,
on the one hand, to an internationalization of the economic life and, on the
other, to the leveling of economic differences,-and to an infinitely greater
degree, the same process of economic development intensifies the tendency to
"nationalize" capitalist interests, to form narrow
"national" groups armed to the teeth and ready to hurl themselves at
one another any moment.” (5) So the aggressive foreign policy reflects itself
domestically. State power becomes the domain of financial oligarchy; the latter
manages production which is tied up by the banks into one knot. This process of
the organisation of production has proceeded from below; it has fortified
itself within the framework of modern states, which have become an exact
expression of the interests of finance capital. Every one of the
capitalistically advanced "national economies" has turned into some
kind of a "national" trust…... A mighty state military power is the
last trump in the struggle of the powers. The fighting force in the world
market thus depends upon the power and consolidation of the "nation,"
upon its financial and military resources.” (5)
Thus, due to the uneven
development in Turkey presented itself 1990s onward, Turkey has become fascist internally
and aggressive imperialist externally with - in addition to a standing army of
over 350,000 - a mercenary army armed to the teeth that made up of religious
fanatics fighting in Syria and Libya and standing who knows where.
The events in eastern Mediterranean is not
isolated from the plundering expansionist, aggressive imperialist aims of
Turkey – neither is isolated from the similar aims of US-British, French,
German imperialists.
“It is impossible to participate
in the imperialist war without “participating” in the capitalist business of
subjugating the people with loans from the capitalist gentlemen. In order to
really oppose the imperialist war, we must sever all ties that fetter people
and bind them to capital… either serve capital, pile up imperialist loans or break
with the capitalists, break with imperialism, and become real revolutionaries
on war issues as well. “(6)
To become real revolutionaries, Marxist
Leninists first have to analyse, establish and clarify the nature of any given
war, and determine his attitude to war and the slogan for the agitation. Marxists-Leninists
adopt a concrete attitude to every war, depending on the class aims
pursued by the belligerents. They do not content with vague, cliché slogans,
but take an active stand.
“The political content of war
determines the historical role it plays in the life of society. Depending on
their political content wars can have a progressive or reactionary influence on
the development of society. It is this division that makes Lenin’s principle of
the political content of war so valuable in theoretical and practical respects.
The political content of wars and their division into just and unjust ones are
organically interlinked… The characteristic is not arbitrary, it reflects the
objective role each war plays in the concrete historical conditions. Just wars
are distinguished from unjust ones by the progressive or reactionary,
liberating or aggressive aims of the belligerents. Any war that is waged by a
people for the sake of freedom and social progress, for liberation from
exploitation and national oppression or in defense of its state sovereignty,
against an aggressive attack, is a just war. Any war unleashed by the
imperialists with the aim of seizing foreign territories, enslaving and
plundering other peoples, is an unjust war.” (7)
Lenin said that “there are just
and unjust wars, progressive and reactionary wars, wars waged by advanced
classes and wars waged by backward classes, wars waged for the purpose of
perpetuating class oppression and wars waged for the purpose of eliminating
oppression..." (8)
There is imperialist war – direct
wars between imperialist powers and there is anti-imperialist war -progressive war
against imperialists. Wrong use of term inevitably results in wrong assessment and
determination of attitude such has been the case of war in Syria, which is a defensive
war against imperialist aggression, a clear anti-imperialist war defined by
Marxism Leninism. “Defense of the fatherland is a lie in an imperialist war,”
says Lenin, “but not in a democratic and revolutionary war.” (8)
In case of an aggression on the
part of Turkey against Greece would make the war anti-imperialist and “defense
of father land” is applicable as far as Greece is concerned. Although it is
possible yet unlikely, Lenin’s evaluation of “little” imperialist war is still
relevant today and the imperialist aggression of Turkey which is not limited to
its scale, may grow into a world war due to her geographical strategic
importance for competing great imperialist powers. Any escalation and
intensification of aggressive military actions with the participation of
competing great powers would inevitably lead to an extension of military
conflicts and aggravate the danger of a world war. Thus, in all possible
scenarios -except in the case of the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship in
Turkey and replacing it with a revolutionary provisional government before or
during the war– the stand of Marxist Leninists of Turkey - as the aggressive
imperialist – will have to be a “defeatist” one., the one that calls for
turning the war into a civil war for a revolutionary provisional government.
One possible, and most likely argument
would be the nonexistence of the objective and subjective conditions for such
civil war. As history has proven, granting that the Marxist Leninists take the
correct stand early on and carry out the necessary agitation and form the
necessary organizations, wars mature the objective and subjective conditions in
a very short time.” Like every crisis in the life of individuals or in the
history of nations,” says Lenin,” war oppresses and breaks some, steels and
enlightens others.” (9) Any changes in the balance of forces in the country
in favour of socialism and democracy will greatly decrease the possibilities of
interfering to a foreign country by force. Little imperialist wars do not
emerge in a “pure” form, but several types often intertwine, develop, and one
type may change into another. Reactionary wars can become civil wars in the
belligerent countries, and changing the character of war, can become a
progressive war against imperialist aggression. With the civil war and
establishment of a revolutionary government, a belligerent country becoming a
target of imperialist great powers, may become a country in defense, waging an anti-imperialist
war. However, Marxist Leninists do not proceed from the “possibilities” but
from the existing situation and concrete conditions and prepare themselves as
such with the historically proven possibilities in mind.
“The only correct proletarian
slogan” Lenin says, “is to transform the present imperialist war into a civil
war. That is the only kind of tactics that will be truly revolutionary
working-class tactics, corresponding to the conditions of the new historical
epoch.”(12) “The slogan of civil war for socialism indicates the
quickest way out of the imperialist war and links our struggle against the war
with our struggle against opportunism. It is the only slogan that correctly
takes into account both war-time peculiarities and the general character of our
activities as distinct from opportunism with its pacifism” (9)
What would be the slogan of Marxist
Leninists of Turkey?
Answer to this question,
undoubtedly, will be dependent on the assessment of given war as to “reactionary-imperialist-unjust
war” or “progressive - defensive-just war”. With the possible exception of
Greece – as long as she does not become a proxy for the EU- the war with all
the ML definition, would be a reactionary war as far as the belligerent
countries.
Considering
the imperialistic nature of fascist dictatorship of Turkey, their policy cannot
be but a reactionary one. And the importance and urgency of the destruction of their
power for the interests of the working people and their struggle in particular
and at least in the region in general, the slogan cannot be anything other than
a defeatist one. “The opponents of the defeat slogan` says Lenin, “are
simply afraid of themselves when they refuse to recognise the very obvious fact
of the inseparable link between revolutionary agitation against the government
and helping bring about its defeat.” (10) For Marxist Leninists, “Once
the war is on, it is impossible to escape it. One must go and do one’s duty as
a socialist. In a war, people think and ponder probably even more than “at
home”. One must go out and organise the proletariat there for the final aim.” (3)
For an imperialist war and for
the Marxists Leninists of the imperialist country, this slogan is “disputed
only by conscious partisans or helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists… To
desire defeat, Trotsky writes, is “an uncalled-for and absolutely unjustifiable
concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which would
replace the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions causing
it, with an orientation—highly arbitrary in the present conditions—towards the
lesser evil” ... This is an instance of high-flown phraseology with which
Trotsky always justifies opportunism. A “revolutionary struggle against the
war” is merely an empty and meaning less exclamation, something at which the
heroes of the Second International excel, unless it means revolutionary action
against one’s own government even in wartime. One has only to do some thinking
in order to understand this. Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government
indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a
defeat. The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a
simple issue. It seems to him that to desire
Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany… Anyone who would
in all earnest refute the “slogan” of defeat for one’s own government in the
imperialist war should prove one of three things: (1) that the war is not
reactionary, or (2) that a revolution stemming from that war is impossible, or
(3) that co-ordination and mutual aid are possible between revolutionary
movements in all the belligerent
countries.” (10)
Lenin in the same article says;
“to repudiate the defeat slogan means allowing one’s revolutionary ardor to
degenerate into an empty phrase, or sheer hypocrisy”, and takes up the proposed
“neither victory nor defeat” slogan as a substitute. This slogan, he says, “is
nothing but a paraphrase of the “defense of the fatherland” slogan. It means
shifting the issue to the level of a war between governments, and not to the
level of the struggle of the oppressed classes against their governments! It
means justifying the chauvinism of all the imperialist nations, whose
bourgeoisie are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are
“only” fighting “against defeat”. The Organising Committee, together with Trotsky,
stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the “neither-victory
nor-defeat” slogan.
“On closer examination, this
slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class
struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class
struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s
“own” government, whereas dealing a
blow at one’s own government in wartime is high treason, means
contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither
victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class
struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are
renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the
proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of
safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of
actual, not verbal disruption of the “class truce”, of acceptance of the class
struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties
experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them.
This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat
of one’s own government and without contributing to that defeat.”
“Whoever is in favour of the
slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” Lenin says, “is consciously or unconsciously
a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case, he
is an enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing ·governments, of
the present-day ruling classes. Those who stand for the “neither-victory-nor-defeat”
slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for
they do not believe in the possibility of international revolutionary action by
the working class against their own governments, and do not wish to help
develop such action, which, though undoubtedly difficult, is the only task
worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task.” (10)
The attitude of Marxist Leninists
towards a possible war between Greece and Turkey should not be limited to
passive cliché slogans denouncing wars, or chauvinistic out cry for the defense
of fatherland but a revolutionary one. Marxist Leninists of a belligerent imperialist
country “during a reactionary war cannot but desire the defeat of its
government.” Due to the fact that the fascist dictatorship of Turkey has the imperialist
character and their policy cannot be but a reactionary one. Dual, intertwined
task of the revolutionaries to overthrow the Fascist dictatorship and the destruction of their state power in line
with the interests of the working people
and their struggle in particular, and in
the region in general, the slogan and the stand cannot be “neither victory nor defeat”,
“defense of fatherland” but the defeatist
one, “the defeat of own government”. “The principal and fundamental task of
socialists in the struggle for stable and democratic peace must be to explain
to the masses the need for revolutionary mass struggle, to spread the idea of
it systematically, and to set up the necessary organisations, to expose the hypocrisy
and falsehood both of the bourgeois pacifist and of the socialist of the Second
International on the “peace programme.” Such talk is doubly hypocritical on the
part of “socialists” who follow the bourgeoisie in denying the possibility of
transforming the present imperialist war into a civil war for socialism, and
who oppose any revolutionary work in that direction.”
(11)
Erdogan
A
September
11, 2020
(1) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism
(2) Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.
35, p. 273. Quoted from ML on War and Army
(3) Lenin, Lecture on the
proletariat and war.
(4) Lenin, Imperialism and the
Split in Socialism
(5) Bukharin, Imperialism and
World Economy
(6) Lenin, Close to the Truth
(7) Fyodorov and others, Marxism-Leninism
on War and Army
(8) Lenin, First All-Russia
Congress on Adult Education
(9) Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky
(Y. Pyatakov)
(10) Lenin, The Defeat of One’s
Own Government in the Imperialist War
(11) Lenin, The Second
International Socialist Conference at Kienthal
(12) Lenin, On the Slogan to
Transform the Imperialist War into a Civil War
.jpg)
No comments