On the assessment and conclusions regarding Ukraine question- Response to MLC
H.K starts with long explanation in proving why Russia is an imperialist
country and Putin is a bourgeois.
I have never said otherwise.
H.K follows with long explanations in proving why
Russia is not anti-fascist.
I have never said otherwise.
So, a substantial portion of his writings in criticism has no relevance to the conclusion of my assessment. That’s why I will not even refer to those. My two articles attached explains in detail the “unintended consequences of wars between imperialist countries” that latently serves the interests of laboring people and of their struggle.
He points out that “they are not familiar with
Fyodorov”. Although I specified the name of the book, that is my mistake, I
should have stated the entire names of the writers of the book “Marxism
Leninism on war and army.” I apologize
for that shortcoming.
Comrade H.K’s striving to defy my conclusion and
to give a different meaning to the example given from Altinoglu in reference to Georgian case, ends
him up in self-conflicting statement on one side, and turns the steps of
the “assessment” process upside down on the other.
He states; "We
believe that Erdogan misinterprets Altinoglu, whose article aims to provide
an overview of the Russo-Georgian war. It appears to us that Erdogan highlights
Altinoglu's final sentence:
“While
condemning their imperialist and expansionist policies, they welcome
Russia's repelling of the attack by the US-Israel-Georgia axis."
This is
the sentence that is 'cherry-picked by Erdogan. Of course, Altinoglu
here correctly assessed the result of the Georgian conflict. But his
conclusions, have already and first emphasized that we: "cannot
in principle take sides in this inter-imperialist conflict".
Here he confused himself. Former is the
“conclusion” of Altinoglu in that specific case- as the last step of the
assessment process, latter is the general “principle” that is considered
after the “analysis” and during the
“evaluation” phase. That is why after pointing out that principle,
Altinoglu follows his statement with the words “ On the other
hand” and specifies his conclusion with the
“determination” of the chief-enemy, and the “stand” in that specific. He
clearly and irreversibly states;
“On the
other hand, they (Marxist Leninists) say that the
USA and NATO, or to put it more clearly, the neo-fascist axis of the
USA-Israel-Britain constitute the most aggressive bloc and that this
bloc, which is the main enemy of the working class and peoples of the world, is
the main instigator and executive of the wars of aggression. And therefore,
they (Marxist Leninists) can never ignore the fact that it is the main
task of the working class and the peoples to weaken, isolate and neutralize
this axis.
Despite
the reactionary and imperialist nature of their regimes, Russia
and China are already on the defensive, and their attempts and counterattacks against
the efforts of the US-NATO axis to encircle, regress and isolate them
serve to preserve the current peace in today's tactical phase and
complicate (make it difficult) the outbreak of a new world war in which
nuclear weapons will also be used.
Therefore, the
revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats and
internationalists, while condemning their imperialist and expansionist
policies, they welcome Russia's repelling of the attack by the US-
Israel-Georgia axis."
There is a difference between
“justifying” a war (once it is already started), and assessing the same war and
its consequences with the interests of the laboring masses and of their
struggle in mind- which is the fundamental task of Marxist Leninists. Same
way, there is a difference between being against capitalism and
bourgeoisie and assessing a concrete situation that we have no control over its
destiny which latently works in the interests of the working class and its
struggle. Disregarding this fact is disregarding the dialectics and all the
historical examples in the name of Marxism. “It would be natural to expect
an author who so admirably condemns metaphysics (in the Marxist sense,
i.e., anti-dialectics)” says Stalin,” and empty abstractions to set us an
example of how to make a concrete historical analysis of the question.
Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Was Lenin being pro-bourgeois in general when
he said;” bourgeois revolution is in the
highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois
revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat.“ Lenin,
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
No, he was not. He was assessing the issue with
the interests of the proletariat in mind.
To give a proper assessment of the
significance of issues on the agenda, we must consider them in
conjunction with the whole situation of world at that given stage of
its development and with the main trends of this development-both in
particular and in general.
The war in Ukraine as some defines as “invasion” others
as “interference” is slowly but surely drawing the demarcation line
between Marxism Leninism and Liberalism, between the idealist
abstractionism and dialectic approach based on the assessments of all ML
parties, organizations and of ML individuals. Some are inevitable due to
their liberal, reformist tendency,
others are due to reliance on abstract theories and generalization of
them without actually applying the dialectics of Marxism and its assessment
process. Most of them do not complete the assessment process but stop at
the conclusion of analysis of current complex concrete situation and
determine the stand through concocting a recipe or general rule.
Lenin was warning against such
practice of applying general principles
and rules as prescription for the determination of the tactics and stands
to be taken. “Of course, in politics, in which sometimes
extremely complicated—national and international—relationships … have to be
dealt with...” says Lenin, but “it would be absurd to concoct a recipe, or
general rule... that would serve in all cases. One must have the brains
to analyze the situation in each separate case.” Lenin, Left-wing
Communism
He was clearly stating that Marxist "teaching
is not a dogma, but a guide to action, Marx and Engels always used to say,
rightly ridiculing the learning and repetition by rote of 'formulas'
which at best are only capable of outlining general tasks that are
necessarily liable to be modified by the concrete economic and political
conditions … It is essential to realize the incontestable truth that a Marxist
must take cognizance of real life, of the concrete realities, and must
not continue to cling to a theory of yesterday. . . ." Lenin-The
Tasks of The Proletariat in Our Revolution
Application of general rules, learned by rote
theories in most cases may not represent the truth and thus the
tactics and stand would be determined based on abstracts which are
assumed to be the truth. Lenin in his article Letters on Tactics was stating that “Marxism
requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis
of the relation of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each
historical situation.” He explains the reason as “Concrete political aims
must be set in concrete circumstances. All things are relative, all
things flow, and all things change.... There is no such thing as abstract
truth. Truth is always concrete.” Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy
in the Democratic Revolution
Marxists do not proceed from the
generalized theories to assessment of a given situation which renders subjectivity and arbitrariness but proceed from the assessment of concrete
situation to the application of theories. Marx, says Lenin, "... speaks only of the
concrete situation; Plekhanov draws a general conclusion without at
all considering the question in its concreteness.” Lenin, Plekhanov's
Reference to History
In Ukraine case too, Marxism requires a concrete
assessment of this separate war. The approach to each war cannot be based
on the generalization of “era” and prescriptive application of to all. “To
hold such a view “says Lenin, “is to reduce the whole thing to an
absurdity and apply a ridiculous stereotype in place of a concrete analysis of
each separate war. To brush aside these concrete questions by resorting to
general phrases about the "era", as Kievsky does, is to abuse
the very concept "era". Kievsky repeats, like a rule learned
by rote, that Marxists should approach things "concretely", but
he does not apply that rule. Kievsky has flagrantly distorted the
relation between the "era" and the "present war". In
his reasoning, to consider the matter concretely means to examine the
"era". That is precisely where he is wrong. “ Lenin, A
Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism
Assessment of a concrete situation is not a statistical,
academic, eclectic, subjective process but objective and in its
dialectic connections as a whole.
“Marxist dialectical method forbids the
employment of “ready-made schemes” and abstract formulas, but
demands the thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its
concreteness, basing its conclusions only on such an analysis. The
dialectical method demands, first, that we should consider things, not
each by itself, but always in their interconnection with other things.
This
sounds “obvious.” Nevertheless, it is an “obvious” principle which is very
often ignored and is extremely important to remember. We have already
considered it and some examples of its application in discussing metaphysics,
since the very essence of metaphysics is to think of things in an abstract
way, isolated from their relations with other things and from the concrete
circumstances in which they exist. Maurice Cornforth, Materialism, and
the Dialectical Method
“Genuine dialectics,” Lenin
wrote, proceeds “by means of a thorough, detailed analysis of a process in
all its concreteness. The fundamental thesis of dialectics is: there is
no such thing as abstract truth, truth is always concrete.” Lenin, One
Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Communists are guided by Marx’s principle that “they
always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto,
“And this requires that, in the interests of the
movement as a whole, one must analyze the situation in each separate case, deciding
what policy to pursue in each case in the light of the concrete
circumstances. On general questions, too, the greatest confusion can arise
from forgetting the dialectical principle that things must not be considered
in isolation but in their inseparable inter-connection. Hence, in order
not to err in policy, in order not to find itself in the position of
idle dreamers, the party of the proletariat must not base its activities on
abstract "principles of human reason," but on the concrete
conditions of the material life of society, as the determining force ; not
on the good wishes of "great men," but on the real needs of
development …The fall of the utopians… was due, among other things, to the
fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the conditions of the
material life of society play … and, sinking to idealism, did not
base their practical activities on the needs of the development of the
material life of society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs,
on "ideal plans" and "all-embracing projects" divorced
from the real life of society.” History of Communist Party of The Soviet
Union (B)
What is this “assessment” of concrete situation and the process of assessment?
To understand any given situation and determine the required tactics and the stand correctly is only possible by means of a careful, concrete, profound analysis and understanding of this process. The process cannot be cut short and drawn a conclusion, but the concrete totality of the situation must be the result and the final stage of conclusions.
Assessment process fundamentally contains two
studies in it, each of which contains numerous dialectically related collection of
data and studying the data. That follows with determination.
1)
Analyzing;
the process of breaking a complex issue into smaller related parts and the in-depth study of each and all -in any given particular and in general - in order to gain a better understanding of the issue at hand.
Study of each given situation will differ with new material for the evaluation of the tactical approach and stand.
2) Evaluation;
analyzing the issue’s merit and significance as far as the interests of the
laboring people and of their interests are concerned- in that given
particular and in general. Identifying the options for dealing with the issue
on hand based on the analysis.
The evaluation
is not the starting point but follows the process of analyzing.
Only then can we determine the tactics to be used and/or stand to be taken regarding that
issue. That is, drawing the practical conclusions from the assessment
and determining which option is likely to be serving best to the interests
of laboring people.
Assessment,
thus, is the process of the concrete calculation of the concrete
interests of a concrete situation which always derives from and dialectically
connected to the interests of the laboring people and of their struggle, their demand. Determination follows
the assessment.
“If there
are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and
interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social
movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of
"eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, but from
the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that
social movement and with which they are connected.” Stalin,
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
And thus;
A
concrete analysis of the status and the interests of the different classes must
serve as a means of defining the precise significance … when applied to this or
that problem. Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia
This is the study of concrete situation which prevents
subjective, learned by rote, arbitrary conclusions that has no bearing
with the interests of laboring people and of their interests, neither in
particular nor in general. " A Marxist must not abandon the ground
of careful analysis of class relations... in assessing a given situation, a
Marxist must proceed not from what is possible, but from what is real." (Lenin: Letters on Tactics) "It is not enough to learn the
slogans by heart (Lenin, A
caricature of Bolshevism) a Marxist "demands a strictly historical
examination of the problem...to treat the problem as separate from the concrete
historical situation is an error of betrayal of the fundamental principles of
dialectical materialism." Lenin, Guerrilla War
It is not which option that fits the prescribed principles
of a memorized and sloganized theoretical formulation which ends up in
subjectivity and arbitrariness- unfortunately, this is the current dominant
practice- but the conclusion of the concrete assessment process that
determines the practice and stand to be taken.
“Any
law and any formula (even the most precise and attractive) does not contain
“indications” of the manifestation of its own substance in specific
circumstances. A formula may be drawn only from experience,
and experience alone takes it from realm of formulas into the realm of reality,
endowing it with flesh and blood, making it concrete, and thereby modifying it.
It is
extremely important to take this into account today when social life has
become incomparably more complex, when laws as the predominant trend force a
road for themselves through a mass of concrete and frequently contradictory
phenomena that modify the operation of these laws and must be taken into
consideration in the practice of applying them.
From this, proceeds the principle of the concrete situation, which is of the utmost
importance... A concrete analysis of the concrete situation makes it
possible to avoid subjectivism, harebrained schemes, and arbitrariness…Lenin
Principles Underlying the Scientific Direction of Communist Construction
Preferring abstract theories and reasoning them for
the conclusions rather than relying on the concrete assessment not based on the
facts but based on memorized theories and application of it is a betrayal of
Marxism Leninism, it is liberalism which is the worst kind of opportunism.
“Abstract
theoretical reasoning” says Lenin “may lead to the conclusion at which
Kautsky has arrived—in a somewhat different fashion but also by abandoning
Marxism..”
It goes
without saying, that there can be no concrete historical assessment of the
current war, unless it is based on a thorough analysis of the nature of
imperialism, both in its economic and political aspects… From the standpoint of
Marxism, which states most definitely the requirements of modern science on
this question in general, one can merely smile at the “scientific” value of
such methods as taking the concrete historical assessment of the war to mean a random
selection of facts which the ruling classes of the country find gratifying
or convenient, facts taken at random from diplomatic “documents”,
current political developments, etc.…
The scientific concept of imperialism, moreover, is reduced to a sort
of term of abuse applied to the immediate competitors, rivals, and
opponents... Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the
World Economy
Now we can take upon the criticism of H.K of MLC of my assessment of the situation and conclusion
As I have noted above, comrade H.K’s criticism is full
of self-contradictory, with wrong deductions and summarizing long history and
explanations which has literally nothing to do with my assessment.
Unfortunately, it looks like Comrade H.K read the articles not to
understand the entire context but to pick and choose and make subjective
deductions that fit his point of view.
H.K states that;
“Imperialism
in Ukraine Particular” by Comrade Erdogan has a very different viewpoint
from our own, but from within the ML-ist movement. “
That is correct, my conclusions are different than
that of H.K -MLC and with similarities
in the analysis yet differences in evaluation and conclusions within the ML movement. I am more
aligned with the groups linked to Harpal Brar (UK) such as CPGB (ML),
Lalkar but with certain reservations and differences in both in analysis
and evaluation.
H.K follows with his interesting deduction from my
articles:
“Erdogan
defends and supports President Putin, and Russia in its current war,
considering it as a progressive war.”
His mechanical deduction does not reflect the
truth. Here is what I say in my assessment;
Evaluations
are basically divided into two;
1-) The
Ukrainian War is an anti-imperialist just war, because
the occupation of Russian Imperialism gives Ukraine the right to defend her
motherland, which is enough to consider it just and progressive!
This Trotskyist, bourgeois Liberal Left view is forgetting and ignoring the
fact that Ukraine is a proxy for US-NATO imperialism, brought to power
by a fascist coup, the war has been going on inside the country for
years, and after the coup attacks and massacres against communists and
antifascists became more organized and more widespread and fuels US-EU chauvinism.
There is no need to dwell on this assessment.
2-) The
war is an imperialist war. In other words, it is a war the US-NATO bloc on one
side and Russia (and China) on the other, fighting against each other
locally.
This
assessment is generally correct. However,
within this correct assessment, the existence of right and left deviations in
the Trotskyist essence, which is not few in number, is too obvious to be
overlooked. Right deviations give weight to Russian
imperialism on the grounds of "occupation", try to justify US-NATO
imperialism without any sin and even almost justify it. Left
deviations, as usual, are content with stereotyped
"stances" with abstract slogans instead of real concrete assessments
and evaluations, by chanting the principles of general theories they
have memorized.
It is obvious that my analysis of the war concludes the war as an
“imperialist war”. I note the fact
that there are right and left deviations in this correct conclusion. Comrade
H.K’s point of view with stereotyped "stances" with abstract
slogans instead of real concrete assessments and evaluations, falls into the Left deviation I mentioned above.
Left deviations do not make a distinction between the “political
content” of the war, and their a progressive or a reactionary influence
on the development of society. They do not even consider evaluating the
inevitable influence of war whether it be reactionary or progressive. They
stop at the memorized and sloganized principles of general theories. For
them whether this imperialist war will have effect on the destruction
of the neo-Nazis and their supporter government, ensuring the security
and internal peace of Donbass, preventing Ukraine from being an "expansion"
and "attack base" by the US-NATO, and a factor for delaying
the possibility of world war. This evaluation does not mean anything to them. They
stop at the analysis step of the assessment process and skip the
evaluation step.
Comrade H.K follows with another deduction he made;
“In broad
terms Erdogan argues it diminishes the power of the main
imperialist world force of the USA; and that it has an anti-fascist
character. We disagree with both these central matters.”
Again, for comrade H.K it is not important to
make an evaluation of whether that war will diminish the aggressive
imperialists power or not. For him it has no value for the interests of
laboring people and of their interests. Then, when Stalin made an assessment
of a war all the way in the Pacific and welcomed the US imperialists success
over Japan, he did not have the interests of people in mind, he was being
pro-US imperialism?
"As
for the first part of Mr. President's speech on the war in the Pacific
Region, we can say: We Russians welcome the achievements that Anglo-American
forces have achieved and are gaining in the Pacific. " The
Tehran Conference 1943
Contrary, that was exactly for the fact that
that success of US imperialism “diminishes the power of the main imperialist
world force of the Japan- Germany-Italy block”
Did the US imperialist have an anti-fascist character?
No. But its success had an anti-fascist effect aligned with the interests
of laboring people and for the Soviets. Every strike blown on the aggressive,
neo-Nazi imperialist block is a gain on the side of people's struggle,
regardless of the imperialist or other intentions of the striker. That
did not make the US anti-imperialist or anti-fascist. Its character was imperialist and fascist
appeasing from the start and after the war shown its character
by saving the Nazis and suppressing the national liberation wars. So, there is a
difference between the character of a belligerent country, and
the latent, unintended effects of its action.
So, in reality, while comrade H.K trying to defy my
assessment with abstract sloganized approach, he is falling into the trap
of the Trotskyite’s who criticize, more like “accuse” Stalin of
compromising with the imperialists and welcoming their successes against
the aggressive imperialists.
Comrade H.K fills page after page his criticism with
analysis that almost no one disagrees with. Such as; (i) What is the class
character of Russia and its President?, Can Putin be trusted when he claims he
fights against fascism in Ukraine?
What has the pages and pages of explanation of “Khrushchevite revisionism and splits in the
neo-capitalist class”, “from Gorbachev to Yeltsin” to do with the current
war issue and its assessment? Literally nothing since no one is claiming
that Russia is not a monopolist capitalist – imperialist country.
This approach of filling an article with seventeen pages of irrelevant subjects does not benefit anyone. I would have expected a
rebuttal on my specific arguments on the “memorized and
sloganized general theories” (see
article attached) applied to this specific condition and question.
As comrade H.K defied his own defiance by either false
deductions or mechanical, abstract approach, he repeats the same on the
issue of Georgia and what comrade Altinoglu means.
Let’s leave aside the fact that I had several
discussions with Comrade Altinoglu on the subject of Georgia, regarding the
assessment and stand to be taken. Comrade H.K states;
We
believe that Erdogan misinterprets Altinoglu, whose article aims to
provide an overview of the Russo-Georgian war. It appears to us that Erdogan
highlights Altinoglu's final sentence:
“While
condemning their imperialist and expansionist policies, they welcome Russia's
repelling of the attack by the US-Israel-Georgia axis."
This is the sentence that is 'cherry-picked by Erdogan. Of course, Altinoglu here correctly assessed the result of the Georgian conflict. But his conclusions, have already and first emphasized that we: "cannot in principle take sides in this inter-imperialist conflict".
It actually boggled my mind reading these deductions made and accusation thereof. In one sentence comrade H.K says “Of course
Altinoglu here correctly assessed the result of the Georgian conflict”,
in other he says; “that is 'cherry-picked by Erdogan”.
Now if it is a correct result of an assessment,
how can one call it “cherry picking”? It is not out of context; it is
the RESULT of the assessment process. Cherry picking refers to picking out
of context. Repeating the result of context is stating it, not cherry picking.
Here comes the confusion not only of comrade H.K but most
everyone has. He sates;
But his
conclusions have already and first emphasized that we: "cannot in
principle take sides in this inter-imperialist conflict".
That is not comrade Altinoglu’s conclusion of his assessment, that is a
statement of a principle that has to be considered during the process of
assessment. After emphasizing the principles,
Comrade Altinoglu, starts his conclusion with the words “On the
other hand”, and “therefore”.
Let’s re-read the assessment;
“The
revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats
and internationalists cannot in principle take sides in this inter-imperialist
conflict for spheres of influence, raw materials, markets, and
military-political supremacy…
And they
know that the crisis in the Caucasus can only be resolved with
the progress and victory of a struggle to be waged under the
leadership of the revolutionary parties of the working class and under the
banner of proletarian internationalism.
On the
other hand, they (Marxist Leninists) say that the USA and
NATO, or to put it more clearly, the neo-fascist axis of the
USA-Israel-Britain constitute the most aggressive bloc and that this
bloc, which is the main enemy of the working class and peoples of the
world, is the main instigator and executive of the wars of
aggression. And therefore, they (Marxist Leninists) can never
ignore the fact that it is the main task of the working class and the
peoples to weaken, isolate and neutralize this axis.
Despite the
reactionary and imperialist nature of their regimes, Russia
and China are already on the defensive, and their attempts
and counterattacks against the efforts of the US-NATO axis to
encircle, regress and isolate them serve to preserve
the current peace in today’s tactical phase and makes the
outbreak of a new world war – in which nuclear weapons will also be
used- difficult.
Therefore, the
revolutionary vanguard of the working class and consistent democrats and
internationalists, while condemning their imperialist and expansionist
policies, they welcome Russia’s repelling of the attack by the
US-Israel-Georgia axis.”
I really do not know how one can successfully create confusion, out of this assessment, and
make convincing deductions other than what is clearly said above.
Here follows with another example of dodging the
facts, striving to confuse the issues, and yet contradicting himself again.
Seems to me that Comrade H.K, not finding his argument
convincing enough on the issue jumps to the conclusion that “this (Ukraine)
is different from that of the current war of an invasion launched by
Russia”, “Georgia was a defence, or a ‘repelling’ of the open attack by Russia”.
Really? If I approach to questions in a learned by
rote, sloganized way, I will ask; “does it really matter who started the war
if one side is imperialist?” Under normal conditions that would be
considered a “just war” for it is a defence of the “fatherland” against
imperialist attack. They would not be considered different but same-
anti-imperialist wars. So, in this sense both wars should be analyzed and
evaluated from this principle. Then, Comrade Altinoglu would have been wrong.
To start with, one has to decide the type of war is
being waged in Ukraine. Memorized slogans would not, could not answer this,
but concrete assessments of concrete situations do.
Both wars Georgia and Ukraine are identical in
the sense that it is part of the aggressive US-NATO imperialism’s
expansionist plan in order to counter the Chinese and Russian imperialism.
Comrade H.K is wrong again in his assessment that they
are different.
I do not even find it worth commenting on comrade
H.K’s statement that;
“It is evasive in our view to defend
Russia's actions in Syria in suppressing the remains of the Syrian
Revolution - as having been simply against Islamic fundamentalism; or
anti-Rojava pro-USA Kurdish forces.”
However, this statement is another clear indication
of approaching to the questions through memorized slogans, in an abstract,
utopian way that leaves no room for the concrete assessments and never
considers where the interests of laboring people and their struggle lies
in any specific case. They never see the objective difference between
defending an imperialist country, its actions, and its effects. They lump sum
all, and repeat the sloganized theories without offering any concrete,
factual, non-utopian solutions to the question on the agenda – let’s wait for
the world revolution Trotskyite approach.
Comrade H.K’s assessments in relation to EU countries are subjective and based on the news and commentaries of bourgeois media. So, I will not dwell on that.
I will, however, have to comment on his statement:
The fact that one side - the first is at the moment apparently so much
stronger, does not indicate automatic support for the second. Indeed, Lenin vividly put it this way:
"It is not the business of socialists to help the younger and stronger robber
(Germany) to plunder the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take
advantage of the struggle between robbers to overthrow all of them. To do this,
socialists must first tell the people the truth".
Nothing comes to my mind on H.K’s wording of “automatic
support”, other than that of meaning the “possibility of support in
certain cases.” I may be wrong, but
if that’s the case, he is contradicting most of what he said before.
However, same Lenin quoted above referring to Japanese
and British said in different words; “Socialist never do anything that will
benefit the excessive -aggressive imperialists- or facilitate their
aggressiveness.”
I will not continue on this issue, because I have
extensively covered it on the attached second article, mostly with
the quotes from Stalin.
In his final notes, comrade H.K blames Russia and her
invasion attempt for all the “terrible things” that are following and will follow. As
if, if Russia did not interfere militarily, Ukraine would be a much better
place, neo-Nazis would disappear rather than getting stronger, neo-Nazis
would stop bombing the Donbass region, cease the massacring,
shooting, burning alive of the
communists and anti-fascists, US-NATO would not implant more biological
research centers in Ukraine, would not utilize its nuclear assets, would
not turn Ukraine to neo-Nazi camp even with the additional import of its
Islamic fanatic less costly mercenaries, and European people would not have to
worry about a war! This is the utopian
approach to the question at best, US-NATO pleasing approach at
worst.
Let's finish the response to the response with Lenin’s words. The approach to
each war cannot be based on the generalization of “era” and prescriptive
application of to all. “To hold such a view “says Lenin, “is to reduce
the whole thing to an absurdity and apply a ridiculous stereotype in place of a
concrete analysis of each separate war”.
That, unfortunately, has been the approach of most parties, organizations
and individual ML in regard to the Ukraine case -as it was to Cuban,
Afghanistan and Kazakhstan cases.
“Of
course, in politics, in which sometimes extremely complicated—national and
international—relationships … have to be dealt with...” says Lenin, but “it would be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general rule... that would serve in all
cases. One must have the brains to analyze the situation in each
separate case.” Lenin, Left-wing Communism
Erdogan A
March 18, 2022
First article
Imperialism - in Ukraine Particular
Second Article
Where rote is repeated, finds itself in the lap of Trotskyism - the approach to the war in Ukraine.
Conclusion
Question of Ukraine - Summary of the conclusions of assessment
Critique
Open response to some of the main points of an article by Erdogan A with MLG
Third Article
Response to MLC- On the assessment and conclusions regarding Ukraine question
Fourth Article
On the statement of “In Defence of Communism”; The stance of the communists towards the imperialist war in Ukraine
Separate addition
Attitude to wars - Marx & Engels 1850, Lenin 1914, Stalin 1933
.jpg)
No comments