Afghanistan and idle, sloganized statements – two fundamental question
 |
| Afghan Parliament, Aneta & other women leaders early1980s |
One varying assessments was if it was a “defeat”, a “blow to aggressive imperialism” or not.
Reading the statements it was so obvious that the subjective fear of “appearing to be supporting Taliban” played a major role in the assessments which returned a “conclusion” of “no defeat” or at best “ an agreement based” defeat. Subjectivity of this conclusion; -either due to opportunism, liberalism deriving from the fear of being labeled as “Taliban supporter” or, due to the influence of western social chauvinism- is quite obvious when the concrete facts and data is analyzed. No imperialist country without stopping of being imperialist would leave an invaded country which has trillions of dollars’ worth natural resources and a crucial strategic importance – unless he is defeated or expecting a humiliating defeat in the short term. This is not something we will dwell on; we will be focusing on the Marxist Leninist theories related to the subject. Anyone who wants to make a detail research on why the US set the ground and provocations to make Taliban an enemy and a target, should study the California based Oil Company UNOCAL and history of its oil and pipeline projects in Afghanistan, and Central Asian Oil- Gas Pipeline Project of China.
On an earlier article “Briefly on developments in Afghanistan”, I stated;
“The US efforts to evacuate.. from Kabul (is) an expression of its defeat. What
does this mean for socialists? Especially in terms of an occupied
country, in the words of Stalin, "every step towards liberation,
even if it contradicts the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer
blow to imperialism.” (1)
The fear of being identified as supporter of Taliban, has affected and shaped the
Marxist Leninist approach to the event. Stalin explained this evaluation of
Lenin in same writing as follows; "Lenin was right when he said that the
national movement of the oppressed countries should not be evaluated in
terms of formal democracy, but in terms of real results, as the overall
balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism shows, i.e., 'not alone, but
on a world scale.” Because every blow, especially against aggressive
imperialism, is a step forward in the interests of the working people and
their struggle in particular and in general.
No feudal structure, especially a religious one, can be
"progressive", but it can "play a progressive role"
depending on the specific historical conditions and exceptional situations
it is in. This is a step forward, arising not from their
"progressiveness" but from the actual "result" of
developments.
What is being forgotten that every assessment of Marxist Leninists derives from and keeps in mind the interests of laboring people and their struggle. Particular
(part) is always subordinated to general (whole). Lenin was saying that “the
democratic interests of one country must be subordinated to the
democratic interests of several and all countries…The substitution of a
republic for a monarchy is not an absolute, but one of the democratic
demands, subordinate to the interests of as a whole.
To be an internationalist Social-Democrat (socialist) one must not
think only of one’s own nation, but place above it the interests of all
nations, their common liberty and equality.” (2)
In simple words, as far as Marxist Leninist is concerned, calling an
obvious defeat as not a defeat based on a false subjectivity,
actually conceals the threats that the aggressive imperialists were
presenting in that region for the whole, including a localized wars
between neighboring countries or even a world war, and conceals the
plundering of the country, hindering its social and economic
development in particular.
The defeat , even if it
lasts short, in actuality is a win, a blow to aggressive imperialism,
not only in particular but in general for the interests of people.
To end this subject, in addition to recalling Stalin’s assessment on same subject
of anti-imperialism, we should recall Lenin’s assessment in which he takes
a country as an example that was ruled by those as reactionary as Taliban of Afghanistan- plus which was under invasion
for 20 years;
“if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war
on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those
would be “just”, “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and
every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed,
dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave owning, predatory
“great” powers. “ (3)
Another, unfortunately widespread learned by rote and repeated approach in
this case too is relying on general principles of theories yet denying the importance of “forms” based on the “essence”. In so many subjects
what differs Marxist Leninists from the Anarchists is that although in essence
one may be the same with the other, but that does not mean the “forms” are not
important for us.
Some statements on Afghanistan issue starts with the correct
assessment that “war is a continuation policy”, yet ends with abstract,
nonconclusive statement that “China is as bad ass imperialist as USA and EU.” The conclusion to be drawn from that statement
is do “not trade with China.“
Okay, what is solution proposed for Afghanistan then? A socialist revolution in Afghanistan? That
is a subject childishly utopic to take serious and dwell on.
Over 70% population of Afghanistan is settled in rural areas and under
the strict control of Landlords. Capitalism is not developed to a degree that
we can even speak of large working class presence in Urban areas. Regardless of
this fact, even if it is a socialist country building socialist economy, TRADE
is unavoidable, and a necessity.
It is a fact that every capitalist country takes measures to
protect its capital exports and foreign investments in some way, some take these
measures militarily, some establish their own puppet government in
the country they invest in, some mortgage the important resources of
that country through economic agreements. If a feudal, semi-feudal country
with no infrastructure or industry wants to lay the foundations for the
development of its economy (whether it is socialist or feudal,
underdeveloped), it has to TRADE. For such countries, development cannot be
talked about without trade. This is the concrete reality for such
countries, just as it was at the early stages of the Soviet Union.
That’s why, idle, abstract phrase making without suggesting any
concrete alternatives and throwing slogans like "down with all
imperialism", "they are all the same", "no trade with
them" are nothing but delusions and practice of Anarchists. Especially when
the subject country has no such working class, and Revolutionary organization
yet, where landlords, tribes dominate, in where 99.99% of the people are
religious and reactionary, shouting the slogan "revolution is the only
solution" does not go beyond narrow-mindedness and anarchist abstract slogans
that its feet do not touch the real ground.
What is it that put forward as a solution to such countries, in
these concrete circumstances and situation? Do not trade, it is better to let
the country remain as it is, one day by itself, 100, 200 years later,
capitalism will develop in that country, the working class and class
organizations will form, and then there will be a revolution? What is the
suggested alternative to the problem other than phrase making that ends up in
reality; do not trade !!.
Staying in the abstract or bringing forward the historical concrete
alternatives ; herein lies the difference between Marxist Leninists and
anarchists. Latter is phrase making with its feet in the air, the other , by
stepping on the realities, determining what the main problems are in the
existing conditions, and determining what steps more likely to be taken in the
direction of social and economic development that may work.
Alternative is either spontaneity, that is, leaving the development to an indefinite future, or realism;
seeing the fact that trade is inevitable for development. After seeing and
confirming this realities, most likely inequalities in trade can be addressed
and criticized.
The principle of supporting the Bourgeois against feudalism lies in this fundamental
question, namely the development of capitalism in such countries, the
formation and development of the working class.
For this reason, a
revolutionary does not oppose investments made in such countries. But he
goes against "trades" in
forms that does not bring about this change even as a latent function,
that does not improve their infrastructure, economy, and education, and trades
that heavily military based, to sell weapons- an historical direction of “trade” that the US and the West have been doing for
centuries, and plundering the subject countries by creating endless
conflicts between tribes or whatever is available to divide and drag into
conflict.
It is easy to put all types of capitalist countries in the same basket
based on the general principles of Theories. It is difficult however, to
present concrete assessments based on concrete conditions and situations. The
petty bourgeois anarchists always choose the easy one, the Marxist-Leninist
the hard one.
Going back to the “forms” and recalling that wars in any form- either
directly or indirectly through proxies- are nothing but the continuation of the
policy, we have to consider the countries the economies of which heavily based on military industry and those
which based on consumer goods – one can add so many variations. Former
requires constant destabilization for its industry, latter requires
stabilization. That in turn makes one aggressive, other non-aggressive as
far the military conflict and war is concerned.
Stalin on his speech said;
“As regards the aggressive countries.. who have already reorganized
their economy on a war footing, they, because of the intense development
of their war industry, are not yet experiencing a crisis of overproduction,
although they are approaching to it.
The war remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors remains a
military bloc; and the aggressors remain aggressors. .. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who
in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states.” (5)
Lenin was making the attitude clear;
the greatest caution, discretion and restraint
must be observed in order not to help the extreme elements in the war
parties of Japan and Germany by any ill-considered or hasty step.
We must not take a single step that might aid the extreme elements in
the war parties of the imperialist powers.” (6)
I hope that the same people who pointed out the fact that the war is
nothing but the continuation of policy in different forms, would come back with
a demagogy that “he was talking about war”.
The point is that although by definition so many countries fall into
the category of “ imperialist”, that
does not mean each and every one is as aggressive and dangerous as the other
at any given condition and situation, to each and every country. For Syria while
currently US is, and Turkey second, Turkey
may end up being the chief aggressive imperialist while Russia is not. Historically
US has proven to be aggressor imperialist who – other than few countries
bordering socialist countries for known purposes- have had his trade with underdeveloped
countries mostly for the goals satisfying the needs of military and energy industry
and had no effect on the social and economic development of countries but
rather have become the main hindrance for their development- through
instability and unending civil wars with the guns from the US.
As far as China is concerned, we have not seen such policy and aggressiveness
-yet- even on the question of Taiwan, Hongkong or Singapore. On top of the previously
agreed upon agreement that halted with and the duration of invasion, new
economic agreements -regardless of whether they are unequal or not- would
contribute the economic development, dissolving of feudal structure and creating
conditions for education which in turn would contribute to the social changes.
The question is the question of people determining her own fate with her own
hands and through her own struggle. Any contribution for the creation of these
conditions -regardless of the chief aim- is welcomed, since Afghanistan is
neither has the means , methods, funds nor the technology to utilize her
unused trillions of dollars’ worth
resources, any attempt, especially from a neighbor country, that will
benefit Afghan people and develop the economy cannot be denied. Emancipation
from the yoke of capital goes through the development of capitalism for
this type of countries. No such country can do that without given
concessions, and there is no record of it in the history for that.
Never mind a semi feudal, reactionary country, even under socialism in
Russia Lenin was saying “To ensure the continuous, if slow, rehabilitation
of large-scale industry we must not hesitate to throw sops to the greedy
foreign capitalists, because, from the standpoint of building socialism, it
is at present to our advantage to overpay the foreign capitalists some hundreds
of millions in order to obtain the machines and materials for the
rehabilitation of large-scale industry “ (7) The question is “to improve
peasant farming and develop local trade more quickly with concessions than
without them.”
It is expected for social chauvinists to rally up against the trade of China
with feudal, semi-feudal, underdeveloped countries -most kept it as such due to
aggressive imperialist policies- however, they remain silent to the trade of
China with the home-capitalist countries. For Marxist Leninists we are for
the trades with these countries that will strengthen the bourgeois and thus
go against the long term interests of
feudalists and will bring about economic and social change, but we are against
the trades to capitalist countries, in this case of China, for it will be
helping the purchasing power of these countries laboring masses in balance and thus
strengthening the bourgeois system.
As a conclusion, the defeat of US-EU aggressive imperialism and an end to their physical invasion, is a win for the people of Afghanistan in particular, and for the anti-imperialist people of the world in general.
In particular, the wall that hinders the first step in the development
of an occupied country has been demolished. Who demolished this wall, how it is
demolished , why it is demolished , does not change the fact that the wall
was demolished. Whether a new wall will be built to hinder the development or
any progress will be made afterwards are secondary questions and depends on
the decisions and attitudes of the people of that country.
For neighboring countries who consider ISIS and similar groups as geopolitical tool of the
USA , apparently, there are expectations that the Taliban could be pragmatic
because of the developments since 2001. Neither Russia nor China favors the
creation of another Syria on their borders with the influx of ISIS and similar
groups with the onset of internal conflict.
For the USA, such
internal turmoil and wars are a part of its general policy, which it
considers "necessary" in order to maintain both its
military industry and its strategic position.
Forced to withdraw and defeated, the USA, with its local agents and
praxis still existing in Afghanistan, in order to preserve its prestige
and to "create victory from defeat", by exporting new ones if
necessary, , will try to put obstacles in the way of all kinds of
initiatives and development in order to maintain the destabilized situation
and destruction in the region.
For this reason, international support, and protests to the Afghan
people in general and Afghan women in particular should be forceful against the
Taliban regime, but avoiding in laying the groundwork, justification for military
interventions. The overthrow of Taliban depends on the economic development of
that country which will bring about the education and force for social changes which
can only be carried out by the people of Afghanistan, not by external forces.
The question is economic development through which the social changes will
follow with the education of masses – an earned, cultural change not implanted ,
forced one.
Erdogan A
August 2021
For some other readers I have to clarify the fact that when Lenin was talking about "not supporting reactionaries against imperialism", he was actually talking "in particular", within a nation state, about a national movement. The entire writing of that given article is about "self-determination" - in particular of oppressed people in a given country is the first section. This section deals with the "uprising " of oppressed minorities against the oppressor in a capitalist, monopoly capitalist (imperialist) country. The use of of word "imperialist" rather than "monopoly capitalist" opened the door for confusion. However, it clearly specifies at the end of first section, and at the start of second section as "in general" which deals with the imperialist states against the other small countries, national movements against foreign invasion, colonization.
Notes
(2) Lenin, Marxism or Proudhonism?
(3) Lenin, Socialism and War
(4) Lenin, Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration
(5) Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U
(6) Lenin, Theses On The Present Political Situation
(7) Lenin, Tenth All-Russian Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)
.jpg)
No comments