Where rote is repeated, finds itself in the lap of Trotskyism - the approach to the war in Ukraine.
Excerpts from the "Answer to Criticism" article on the subject.
When wise! comments
go as far as pedantry; they will inevitably have to reveal their theoretical
insights. Rogue and arrogant interpretations of the war in Ukraine also had
to show its Trotskyist side. Because what is generally advocated
is neither theoretically nor formally different from what the Trotskyists
defended in the name of Marxism-Leninism in order to condemn Stalin
for his assessment and stance in the second world war.
I will not dwell
too much on the self-contradictory and self-defeating statement of "World
War II was different", because by talking about " difference
" they are refuting their own claims that "there will be no
difference" in the standard qualifications, evaluations, and attitudes
that they recite by rote.
We can address this dialectically by addressing the basic claims. However, it is worth mentioning the following brief note about the Second World War. Chronologically, in 1935 Italy invaded Ethiopia, in 1936 Italy and Germany sent troops to Spain, in 1938 they occupied the Klapede region of Lithuania, on 20 August Hitler proposed a non-aggression pact to the Soviet Union. Stalin agreed, and the agreement was signed on August 23. In September 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Immediately after this, France declared war on Germany, Germany occupied France, Belgium, the Netherlands. In other words, the Second World War did not start with Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, this started in June 1941. To claim that this aggressive imperialist war is a "completely different" war that "cannot be taken as an example to the imperialist war" just because they are fascist is a subjective statement that has no value and is not even worth answering. For this reason, chauvinism shows itself predominantly on the left of the USA and NATO member countries. Despite all its shortcomings, the Russian left sets itself as an example by targeting, condemning, and focusing on its own government. However, the leftists of the USA and NATO member countries either ignore this or are incapable of understanding the context of Russian stand and copying the stance of the Russian left as is and focusing on Russia and the occupation instead of opposing their own governments and NATO, they are painting the ugliest portrait of chauvinism.
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.
National wars against aggressors and oppressors are justified; because they promote
the progressive development of society. The slogan of defending the
homeland in such a war is both logical and justified. But the concrete and
historical facts of Ukraine clearly and unequivocally show that this war is
not of this type, that it is a proxy of the aggressive imperialism of the
US-NATO with its neo-Nazi structure and neo -Nazi local and imported
military forces.
Stalin made this noticeably clear in his Interview with Roy Howard (1936).
"History shows that when any state intends to make war against another state,
even not adjacent, it begins to seek for frontiers across which it can reach
the frontiers of the state it wants to attack, Usually, the aggressive
state finds such frontiers.
It
either finds them with the aid of force, as was the case in 1914 when Germany
invaded Belgium in order to strike at France, or it "borrows" such a
frontier, as Germany, for example, did from Latvia in 1918, in her drive to
Leningrad. I do not know precisely what frontiers Germany may adapt to her
aims, but I think she will find people willing to "lend" her a frontier."
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.
Others, despite the right approach, make the habit of including
"generalized" slogans in the text. Truths can be told without
emphasizing sloganized theories. Because generalization in specific
situations is both contrary to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism and a betrayal
of the dialectic of Marxism. General slogans encourage simplicity,
memorization, inhibit thinking, research, and making dialectical connections.
In determining the
stance are taken in both, is based on the general analysis.
However, stance is considered in the light of these analyzes, evaluated,
and determined with the interests of the working people and their struggle,
both in particular and in general as a starting point. While doing this, if
necessary, a brain gymnastics is done, based on the same analysis,
possible positive and negative effects, and outcome for the benefit of the laboring
people are discussed. Without evaluating these, a specific attitude cannot
be determined, it remains a rote-like, general attitude. Yes, in a complex,
intertwined war that is continuing, a single and definitive stand
cannot be determined, but this does not prevent the discussion on the
subject, on the contrary, it makes it necessary.
It is one thing
to equate today's Russia with the Soviet Union politically and to show the
similarities of a given war in which Russia was
involved is another. Such a demagoguery accusation of "equating " and on that base rejecting any such analogy is essentially no
different from the discourses we will touch upon. This may not be Russia,
but another imperialist country, it could be in a comparable situation elsewhere. The similarity is an imperialist war between an imperialist bloc
whose aggression has been proven hundreds of times since the end of the second
world war and whose strategic partnerships have been crumbling, who is
constantly in decline and whose military aggressive ferocity becomes more
intense as it regresses, and another imperialist block whose interests do not currently
lie in military aggression, which seeks to strengthen itself both through
strategic partnerships and militarily. In the second world war, the
imperialists faced each other for their own interests, especially because of
the increased probability of the Soviets to win. This inter-imperialist confrontation,
despite their imperialist aims, produced a positive outcome that worked in
the interests of the Soviets. The similarity is here, in this
confrontation on the agenda, it is the evaluation of whether there is or will
be the interest of the peoples of Ukraine in particular and the people of the
world in general. To reject this and stay in rote abstraction is laziness.
Contrary to the Wise-Professors who cut off the subject, it is the
evaluation of whether there is or will be any effect on the interest of the
peoples of Ukraine in particular and of the world in general in the
confrontation on the agenda that needs to be brainstormed.
As we can see,
there is a growing consensus that this war is an imperialist war and that it
has similarities to the Second World War. Considering the fact that this war
is still going on, and the "political character" may change from
the smallest groups to the big states according to the developments, that is,
the sides may change, and therefore attitudes may also change, the difference is
not a decisive difference. In this particular evaluating whether Russia
(and China) will display a triple position as in the second world war can only
be a speculation, no matter how much truth it contains in it; - 1) not a
pre-war military aggressor, but supportive- reactionary position -as in for
Germany to overthrow the Soviets , 2) its progressive position – as in against
Germany by Allied with the Soviets - and 3) its aggressive position after the war-
as in USA- GB.
Evaluating whether
a tripartite position (the next aggressive imperialist position) will
be exhibited can only be speculation, no matter how much truth it contains. Therefore,
on the basis of Lenin's evaluation of war, Fyodor's statement (Marxism-Leninism
on War and Army)
“The political content of the war determines the historical role it plays in
the life of society. Depending on their political content, wars have a
progressive or a reactionary influence on the development of society. It
is this distinction that makes the principle of the political content of the
war so valuable in terms of theory and practice" comes to mind.
In line with this statement,
"In the current concrete situations and conditions, the war - Russia's
occupation practice - has a progressive effect as a political
content, especially in Ukraine could be more objective than the other: 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 , (although it is too early for
analysis) the factor for delaying the
possibility of world war summarizes these progressive effects .
Fyodorov in the
same work, states;
" The possible military conflicts within the capitalist camp may
assume the form of 1) an imperialist war on the part of both warring parties, or 2) that
of a one-sided aggression by a big imperialist predator against a weaker
capitalist country, or 3) finally, of an attempt by some bourgeois country
that has become a vassal of foreign capital, to defend its state sovereignty."
Today's war is a
specific war that falls into this third category.
***
Let's get to the
main issues, and some of them are just generally correct but lacking the
concrete application, they are rote and essentially (consciously or
unconsciously) Trotskyist discourses; (Due to the readers' existing
theoretical background, I will quote as few and short as possible)
Since these
discourses and related general theories are dialectically linked, each
quotation can easily be linked to the previous or subsequent discourse. In the
end, it is inevitable that they will resemble each other, since they are made
on the basis of memorized slogans and analyzes, not an attitude based on the
interests of the working people and of their struggle. Almost all of the
rote interpretations are based on or connected with the rhetoric " The
working class, the people have nothing to gain from the victory of this or that
imperialist power ", which is again rote, detached from its content
and history and contrary to the application of dialectic of Marxism. The
following excerpts and stated history will not leave any necessity to be
answered this statement above separately.
On the
rhetoric of "There can be no right side in imperialist wars",
"Determining of the archenemy is an adventure".
The
determination of the main enemy is not an adventure, but a serious determination that Marxist Leninists are obliged to make in
every struggle, from the democratic struggle to the anti-imperialist war to the
imperialist wars. In the democratic struggle, the identification of the
archenemy of any particular one, such as Oligarchy, Autocratic, Fascist,
religious reactionary, etc., is of vital importance in terms of allies, organization,
and tactics.
When Lenin, in his
article “A Protest of the Russian Social Democrats,” emphasized the archenemy
in that given concrete situation, by saying that the Socialists " present task is
to overthrow the autocracy" did not mean that he forgot his
general archenemy, capitalism.
In the
anti-imperialist war, the determination of which imperialist country is
keeping the country under the yoke of colony, semi-colony, or attacking, occupying,
etc. also sets the foundation to determine the allies and the attitude
to be taken.
In 1951, in the
Indian CP meeting, Stalin said:
“Ghosh:
I am unclear why only against British imperialism when at present the entire
world is in struggle against American imperialism which is considered to be the
head of the anti-democratic camp?
Comrade
Stalin: It is very simple; the united national front is against England, for
the national independence from England, and not from America. It is your
national specificity. India was semi-liberated from whom? From England, and not
from America “Record of the
Discussions of J.V. Stalin with the Representatives of the C.C. of the
Communist Party of India Comrades,
The
determination of "the main enemy" is not to
declare the other as anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist, which is a mechanical discourse. First of all, for
Marxist Leninists, "determination of the archenemy" is the most
important and mandatory determination.
To deal with the
imperialists only on the basis of their general definition and to evaluate on
this basis, and especially the attitude to be taken,
can be made not by a Marxist, but by narrow-minded, enemies of the working
peoples and their struggle. In some wars, there are those who are aggressive
(in the military sense), non-aggressive, warmongering, and peace-loving
(undoubtedly, for their own benefit in those specific circumstances).
Without this fundamental analysis and a fundamental assessment of the interests
of the working people and their struggle, the stand to be taken cannot be
determined.
For a
Marxist," said Lenin, in taking a stand against
this war, "
"Clarifying the nature of war is a necessary preliminary
for deciding the question of its attitude towards war. But for such an
explanation, first of all, the objective and concreteness of the war in
question is necessary." But for such a clarification, first and
foremost to establish the objective conditions and concrete circumstances of
the war in question. It is necessary to determine
the conditions of the war. It is necessary to think about the war in the
historical environment in which it is taking place, only then can one determine
one's attitude towards it. Otherwise, the resulting interpretation will be
eclectic rather than materialistic.
Depending on historical conditions, the relationship of classes and similar data, the attitude towards war must be different at different times. " Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and War
Zhdanov said,
"The main result of the Second World War was the military defeat of
Germany and Japan, the two most militaristic and aggressive countries of the capitalist
countries ... France also weakened and lost its importance as a great
power. As a result, only the two "great" imperialists "the
world power remained - the United States and Great Britain. But the
position of one of them, Great Britain, weakened. The war showed that British
imperialism was not militarily and politically as strong as Germany, Britain
in Europe was helpless against German aggression." Zhdanov,
International Situation
Now, according
to these wise professors Stalin was not a Marxist-Leninist because he
specifically distinguished the USA and England from the others and said
that they followed a "politics of peace" and others as the "main
enemies".
"Pearl
Harbor "incident", the loss of the Philippines and other Pacific
Islands, the loss of Hong Kong and Singapore, proved that Japan, as the aggressor
state, was better prepared for war than Great Britain and the United
States, which pursued a policy of peace. You can't see it as a
coincidence." Stalin, the question of peace and security
It means that, according
to Stalin, an imperialist country can also follow a "peace" policy -
no doubt due to its interests in that given time. So, things may not be
either black or white.
"Declaring
and defending one of them as the main enemy and the other as an
anti-imperialist in the conflict of two imperialist camps will contribute
neither to peace nor to the struggle against imperialism." On the rhetoric of "Determining one of the imperialists as an
aggressor or archenemy would mean declaring the other an anti-fascist,
anti-imperialist";
Let's start with Fyodorov's
discourse;
Even
today, capitalist countries may under certain conditions wage progressive
wars, but the imperialist tendencies of bourgeois policies always assert themselves.
As main enemy,
Stalin, who identified the "aggressor" on this issue, said:
This
question is the more appropriate since history shows that aggressor nations,
the nations which attack, are usually better prepared for a new war than
peace-loving nations which, having no interest in a new war, are usually
behindhand with their preparations for it.... when Japan, as the aggressor
nation, proved to be better prepared for war than Great Britain and the
United States of America, which pursued a policy of peace.... The reason here
is not personal qualities but the fact that aggressor nations, interested in a
new war " Stalin, the question of Peace and Security
Stalin who made a distinction as aggressive and non-aggressive imperialist—that
is, identifying the main enemy—said:
The
war remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors remains a military bloc; and
the aggressors remain aggressors.
It
is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not
yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor
states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive
states, primarily England, France, and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back
and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.
Thus, we are witnessing an open redivision of the world and spheres of influence at
the expense of the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at
resistance, and even with a certain amount of connivance, on the part of the
latter
How
is it that the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast
opportunities, have so easily, and without any resistance, abandoned their
positions and their obligations to please the aggressors?
Formally
speaking, the policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows:
"Let
each country defend itself from the aggressors as it likes and as best it
can. That is not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with
their victims."
But
actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at
aggression, giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the
war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a
desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work" Report on
the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(B.)
As an example of
the evaluation of general theories according to specific periods, conditions,
and situations, not on the basis of memorization of the principles, we can see that
Stalin defined the same forces as "peaceful" in one specific and
aggressive in the other.
“Of
course, in the United States of America, in Britain, as also in France, there
are aggressive forces thirsting for a new war. They need war to obtain
super-profits, to plunder other countries. These are the billionaires and
millionaires who regard war as an item of income which gives colossal profits.
They,
these aggressive forces, control the reactionary governments and direct them.
But at the same time, they are afraid of their people who do not want a new war
and stand for the maintenance of peace. Therefore, they are trying to use
reactionary governments in order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive
them, and to depict the new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the
peace-loving countries as aggressive. They are trying to deceive their people in
order to impose on them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war.
Precisely for this reason they are afraid of the campaign in defense of peace, fearing that it can expose the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governments.
War may become inevitable if the warmongers
succeed in entangling the masses of the people in lies, in deceiving them and drawing
them into a new world war.” Stalin, When Is War Not Inevitable?
Regarding the just
or unjust of the war, Stalin gives the following example;
“Where, then, lies the difference? In that the
soldiers in the war against Korea and China do not consider it as just, whereas
in the war against Hitler-Germany and militaristic Japan, they considered it
absolutely just… the Americans stole the island of Taiwan, are
aggressors, and that the U.S.A., having stolen the island of Taiwan and
led their troops straight to the borders of China, is the defending side.
It is therefore difficult to convince the troops that the U.S.A. is right to
defend its security on Korean territory and on the borders of China, and
that China and Korea are not right to defend their security on their own
territory or on the borders of their states.
Really,
one must have lost what was left of conscience to maintain that the United States
of America, which has stolen Chinese territory, the island of Taiwan, and
fallen upon China's borders in Korea, is the defensive side; and on the
other hand, to declare that the Chinese People's “Republic which has defended
its borders and striven to take back the island of Taiwan, stolen by the
Americans, is the aggressor.” Stalin, Interview with
"Pravda" Correspondent February 17, 1951
In the Second World
War, when the Bolsheviks declared the German, Japanese and Italian imperialists as their main enemies, they did not become the declarer of the USA and England as "anti-imperialist"
or anti-fascist.
When Lenin declared
Britain and Japan "aggressors" in the first world war, he did not become
a declarer of the others as "anti-imperialists".
When Stalin said
to the Indian communists “your arch-enemy is the British imperialism, he did not become the declarer of other imperialists as "anti-imperialists".
Such correlation has nothing to do with Marxism or with its dialectics, but with eclecticism and mechanism.
On the rhetoric, "One cannot fight against the other on the basis of an imperialist" ;
This is exactly
what the Soviets did. To form alliances with non- aggressive imperialists
against aggressive imperialists. The above quotations already given sufficient information on this subject. The problem is not to act on slogans,
but to determine the attitude to be taken in the given situation, based on the
interests of the working people and their struggle. This is what is decisive.
Analysis of imperialist, imperialist war in a specific situation effects
the evaluation and determination of the stand.
In the face of
German imperial aggression, the Izvestia article of 18 March 1938 urged other
Imperialist Powers "to take practical measures aimed at stopping further
aggression and eliminating the growing danger of a new world massacre."
What do these words
of Stalin say about fighting one of the two imperialist camps against the other?
Because he "welcomes" the success of the Anglo-American forces
against the aggressive imperialists in the Pacific, does he see them as
anti-imperialists?
"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
On the rhetoric
that "in the war between the two imperialists, even at the local level,
no side is taken, no interference, the people will determine their own
destiny", that is, on neutrality;
In his report to
the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March
1939, Stalin analyzed the reasons for the spread of aggression by German
aggressive imperialism, saying:
"
The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries,
particularly Britain and France, have rejected the policy of collective
security, the policy of collective resistance to aggressors, and have
taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of "neutrality."
"
In other words, as
a Marxist-Leninist, Stalin's negative evaluation of the other imperialists' non-intervention
as neutrality does not fit with the rhetoric of these rote learners.
In the face of this
aggression and provocation, which fed and strengthened the Nazi system in
particular, and the neo-Nazi US-NATO bloc in general, it was impossible for
Russia to be "neutral" in terms of its own interests. Referring
to the British and French imperialists, Stalin said at the same congress;
"The policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free
rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war.
The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder
the aggressors in their nefarious work.” Stalin, Eighteenth of the CPSU(B)
Congress Stenographic Report, 1939
On the rhetoric of "Communists
are against occupation";
Yes, communists are generally against the occupation, but this is not a
recipe to be applied to every specific situation and condition. First of all, a
definition of "occupation" needs to be made. Forcibly moving troops
and equipment to another country may be the simplest explanation.
The second related
issue is whether this "occupation" is aimed at annexing
territories of non-native peoples, or is it simply aimed at establishing a
front to curb the expansion of aggressive imperialists, or any other reason.
Because Marxism-Leninism does not have an approach that prescribes according
to "general". Communists determine their positions as a result of
scientific analysis, depending on each specificity, and keeping the
interests of the proletariat in mind.
During the Second
World War, the Soviets were taking measures to protect their western borders.
About thirty-two kilometers from Leningrad, on the border were Finnish troops, most of
whose commanders were aligning themselves with Hitler's Germany. Although the
Soviet Government was willing to compensate Finland with twice the area on the
Soviet border, Fins rejected the USSR's proposal to move the Finnish border to
a territory of several dozen kilometers. As a result of the hostile actions and
provocations on the Soviet-Finnish border, the Soviets carried out the invasion,
which further shifted the borders in the northwest and especially in the
Leningrad region, and the security of the USSR was strengthened. This invasion
measure played an important role in the Soviet Union's defense against
Hitler's aggression.
Meaning that, it
is not the "general theories and slogans" that determine the attitudes to be taken, but evaluation of where the interests of
the working people and their struggle lie, in particular and in general. In his
speech at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on March 29, 1940, VM
Molotov explained above situation as follows:
"...The
Soviet Union, which had crushed the Finnish Army and had every opportunity to
occupy all of Finland, did not do so and did not demand any compensation
for its war expenditures, as any other Power would have, but limited its
demands to a minimum... In the Peace Treaty, we had no other purpose other
than to protect the security of the Leningrad, Murmansk, and Murmansk
Railway. ”
Stalin and the
Bolsheviks did not object to the British occupation of Egypt's coastal and
canal region for similar purposes;
"Was
the British Government right in deploying its troops in Egypt during the war,
despite the protests of the Egyptians and even the resistance of some elements
in Egypt? It was undoubtedly right... Only the enemies of democracy or the
insane could argue that the British Government's action in this situation
constituted aggression. " Soviet Information Bureau, Falsificators
of History, 1948
Stalin and the
Bolsheviks did not oppose the US massing (i.e., invasion) of its troops and
equipment in Morocco Africa without the country's consent. The Bolsheviks
evaluated this invasion as "correct", aiming to establish a front
in preventing the expansion of aggressive imperialist Germany.
Was
the US right when it landed its troops in Casablanca, despite Moroccan
protests and the direct military opposition of the French Petain Government,
whose mandate extended to Morocco? Undoubtedly it was right. This was a
crucial means of establishing a base in the immediate vicinity of Western
Europe to counter German aggression, creating an opportunity for victory
over Hitler's troops and thus liberating France from Hitler's colonial
oppression.. Only enemies of democracy or insane people could view these
actions of American troops as aggression." Soviet Information
bureau, Falsificators of History, 1948
At that time,
Trotskyists and some revisionists opposed it and they still do.
In other words, it
is wrong to use a generalization like "communists are against
occupation" and to apply it as a prescription for every situation and particular,
both in the sense of instilling rote learning and sloganism into the masses,
and because it is against the spirit and dialectic of Marxism.
Before concluding, it would be appropriate to emphasize an
important assessment of Stalin, especially in relation to the current
situation.
“The United Nations Organization, from being a world organization of nations with
equal rights, has changed into an instrument of a war of aggression. In
reality, the United Nations Organization is now not so much a world
organization as an organization for the Americans and treats American
aggression as acceptable... The United Nations Organization, which
was created as a bulwark for keeping peace, has been transformed into an
instrument of war, a means to unleash a new world war. The aggressive core of
the United Nations Organization has formed the aggressive North Atlantic pact
from ten member states and the representatives of these countries are now
making decisions about war and peace in the United Nations Organization. It was
these who implemented the scandalous decision on the aggression of the
People's Republic of China in the United Nations Organizations.
In
reality, the United Nations Organization is now not so much a world
organization as an organization for the Americans and treats American
aggression as acceptable.” Stalin, Interview with "Pravda"
Correspondent February 17, 1951
Conclusion
Marxist-Leninists must abandon the narrow-minded understanding that "every
imperialist, in all circumstances, under all conditions, in every particular
and at all times is the same in terms of the evaluation of the interests of working people
and their struggle", and "under no circumstances can there be
"the main enemy " between the imperialists.
The task is to take
a stand on the basis of the interests of the working people and of their struggle, a result of an evaluation relying on a concrete
assessment of concrete conditions. The attitude is not determined by the
analysis of whether it is imperialist or not but based on the interests of
the working people in relation to the results of that given analysis.
Marxist-Leninists do
not define their positions in any specific manner, based only on the
general description of the terms, imperialist, or any other issue. Determination
of stand comes second, depends on the evaluation -which almost everyone
misses- that follows the analysis of concrete situation. The former analyzes
and defines the situation and conditions, the latter determines the
attitude to be taken depending on these results and only in terms of the
interests of the working people and their struggle in particular and in general. If the analysis is wrong, then the assessment of attitude will be wrong - as
it is today.
True
Marxist-Leninist analysts pay no attention to any rote, subjective views,
and stances. They do not engage in opportunism to please one or the other
in order to increase their followers and popularity. They examine the problem
at hand with only one interest in mind: the interests of the working
masses and the interests of their struggles in this particular and around the
world in general. Therefore, they have to be objective. They have to
examine the concrete circumstances and situation, the past and recent
history, the character of the belligerent countries concerned, in
particular and in general, and determine what is at stake when it comes
to the interests and struggles of the working masses - not only in that
particular, but worldwide in general.
For Marxist
Leninists, the interests of the "particular" is always subordinated to the
interests of the general-whole. This means that in some cases what is
useful for the particular may conflict with what is beneficial for the peoples
of the world "in general". In such cases, the "general
interests" become a priority for Marxist Leninists. Because the peoples
of the world cannot count on the possibility that the imperialist
aggressors will be "prudent" in a world war and will set certain
limits on the use of nuclear missiles...
The war waged by
German imperialism had an extremely reactionary and
aggressive character, the most brutal and predatory of world imperialism.
It was not only Nazi Germany but also Anglo-French ruling circles that pursued
reactionary goals. War between them had imperialist character on both sides. However,
this did not lead Stalin and the Bolsheviks to fight both imperialist sides. On
the contrary, they determined their attitude towards the general interests of
the working peoples and their struggle (as the Soviets represented this "general" at that time). They distinguished between aggressive and non-aggressive, warmongering,
and peace-loving, and identified "the main enemy" at that
given situation.
What is decisive in
taking a stance is to determine, after a concrete and grounded analysis,
where the interests of the working people and their struggle lie. Since
the attitude determined only from the basic analysis most likely be wrong without
this evaluation, any stand inevitably will have to be learned by rote, sloganized,
demagogic and abstract explanations- in return which do not explain anything clearly and do not guide.
March 2022
Erdogan A
Related Articles
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
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