Attitude to wars - Marx & Engels 1850, Lenin 1914, Stalin 1933
PDF download
There are two fundamental issues here that have not been taken in the
consideration; one is the existence of an anti-fascist civil war in Ukraine
that has been waged for years, the other is the appraisal of a war based on
a war with distinctive character and form.
There is a civil war going on for the last eight years waged by the anti-fascist communist alliances in where the alliance has liberated the villages, towns, cities and entire regions from the Nazi Ukraine regime and fighting the neo-Nazis to protect these liberated regions. This fact cannot be ignored by Marxist Leninists but only by bourgeois liberals and by those with fascist inclinations.
Anyone who denies the
existence of this 8 yearlong anti-fascist-civil war in Ukraine
cannot be a Marxist Leninist and thus cannot be an interlocutor to this discussion.
"Civil war” says
Lenin, “is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class
struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society
are natural, and under certain conditions inevitable continuation,
development, and intensification of the class struggle. That has been
confirmed by every great revolution. To
repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme
opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution." (1)
There are so called Marxist
Leninists who admits the reality of the civil anti-fascist war in Ukraine yet claim that it is their “private matter”. For Marxist Leninists, civil
wars, either anti-fascist or anti-imperialist, is NOT a private matter of
that given country but a general matter concerning all anti-fascists and
anti-imperialists. Stalin eloquently stated this fact when he said;
The toilers of
the Soviet Union are merely fulfilling their duty in giving all the assistance
they can to the revolutionary masses of Spain. They fully realize that the
liberation of Spain from the yoke of the fascist reactionaries is not the
private affair of the Spaniards, but the common cause of the whole of
advanced and progressive humanity. (2)
The existence of anti-fascist civil
war is one of the two fundamental and concrete facts that is denied or
overlooked and not considered in the assessment to take the correct stand.
Ready-made conclusions and formulas are applied for the determination of attitude
for this specific war. In a way that is what Lenin exactly condemned saying that :
.. If a
Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because of the
ready-made conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of
serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which he must examine
critically, he would be a very deplorable Communist. (3)
That is exactly what the practice
has been for the analysis of Ukraine war. Although correct stands in
practical life have been taken especially by the communists of Italy and
Greece, and the statements have slightly revised, in general, same
slogans based on ready-made conclusions and sophistry remained to be dominant.
The crux of the problem lies
in the lack of study of the concrete situation and using a historical
assessment that has no resemblance other than appearance to the current one.
Not studying and analysing the current concrete situation, analysing the
domestic and foreign policy and practices of belligerent countries yet
using ready-made conclusion, forces them to sophistry to convince themselves, their followers and anti-fascist masses at large. “ In all times” said Lenin “the sophists have been in the habit of citing instances that refer to situations
that are dissimilar in principle.” (4)
Although for a petty bourgeois, sophistry
is a common individual practice where they continually fall back on
sophistry as their mode of polemic, Politically, sophistry is a calculated
technique of magnifying general points and obscuring or minimizing particular
points. Revisionists and bourgeois Liberal tendency defend their theoretical
revisionism with the aid of clever sophistry. Sophistry is the substitution of eclecticism for
dialectics. Creating confusion with
sophistry is a deception of the laboring
masses. That is why Sophistry is a serious problem in the Marxist Leninist movement. That is the way the “pacifists”
default on their responsibility and dope themselves (and thus the masses) in sophistry. It is by
means of sophistry they try to
conceal or justify their
desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie.
Lenin, criticizing Narodniks
said;
These theories
made sophistry of Marxism and falsified it (sometimes unconsciously);
they appeared to be Marxist and, “by referring to Marx”, tried to
deny the application of Marx’s theory. (5)
The reality is, with some
exceptions (consciously that of Trots), most statements are unconsciously
sophist in their evaluation of the present imperialist war. All through history, each epoch, the wars had its general and specific characters
of its own, from Marx& Engels time to Lenin and Stalin’s time.
And as far as the interests of proletariat and her struggle is concerned, each following wars will have its own particular
character regardless of its general definition with varying (most
probably interchanging) stands; defeatism, active neutrality, defense and inevitable connection with it,
offense in various forms. Marxist Leninists cannot take the generalization
of a previous war and apply that as a ready-made conclusion and formula
for the stand to be taken.
Let’s start with some quotes of
basics
“We are
revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, and we always start out from a correct
scientific analysis of the economic and political situation and of the
tendencies of its development. We repudiate all subjectivism and its
arbitrariness in appraising the objective situation. If we, as Marxists,
repudiate subjectivism, it is not because we regard ourselves as slaves of
objective development. No, we regard ourselves as the active revolutionary
instrument of history for accelerating the victory of the
proletariat.” (6)
“Abstract
theoretical reasoning 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. Otherwise, it
would be impossible to arrive at a correct understanding of the economic
and diplomatic history of the last few decades without which it would be ridiculous
to expect to work out a correct view of the war. (7)
“The
character of a war and its success depend chiefly upon the
internal regime of the country that goes to war, that war is a
reflection of the internal policy conducted by the given country before
the war. “ (8)
Now we can start studying the
wars of Marx and Engel’s time (1854-76) and their attitude, first world
war before and after revolution during Lenin’s time and his attitude, second
world war during Stalin time and his attitude and the current war that is
actually a world war being waged in localities and heading towards a nuclear
war.
Considering and Comparing them will confirm Lenin’s statement that “depending
on historical conditions, the relationship of classes and similar data, the
attitude towards war must be different at different times. " (9)
There will be times, conditions,
and situations where there is no “interests
of proletariat in general” but only
the “interests of proletariat” in particular, there will be times , conditions,
and situations where, because of the existence of a “general interests of
proletariat”, the interests of particular will be subordinated to the
interests of the general. In a
constantly changing world the conditions and situations will change, so the
attitude to each will have to be different.
Analysing the events and epoch in
the New York Tribune, 12 April 1853 Marx summarized;
Russia is
decidedly a conquering nation, and was so for a century, until the
great movement of 1789 called into potent activity an antagonist of formidable
nature. We mean the European Revolution, the explosive force of democratic
ideas and man’s native thirst for freedom. Since that epoch there have
been in reality but two powers on the continent of Europe – Russia
and Absolutism, the Revolution and Democracy. For the moment, the
Revolution seems to be suppressed, but it lives and is feared as deeply as
ever. Witness the terror of the reaction at the news of the late rising at
Milan. But let Russia get possession of Turkey, and her strength is
increased nearly half, and she becomes superior to all the rest of Europe
put together. Such an event would be an unspeakable calamity to the
revolutionary cause. The maintenance of Turkish independence, or, in case
of a possible dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the arrest of the Russian
scheme of annexation, is a matter of the highest moment. In this instance
the interests of revolutionary Democracy and of England go hand in hand. (10)
A week later in the same New York
Tribune he states;
what has been
the natural result? That in all essential points Russia has steadily, one
after another, gained her ends, thanks to the ignorance, dullness and
consequent inconsistency and cowardice of Western governments… England
and France never stirred an inch when all this was done,
and the only time they did move was to protect, in 1849, not Turkey, but the
Hungarian refugees. (10)
He sates in New York Tribune, 9 June 1853
Russia
herself is more afraid of the revolution that must follow any general war
on the Continent than the Sultan is afraid of the aggression of the Tsar. If
the other powers hold firm, Russia is sure to retire in a very decent
manner. Yet, be this as it may, her late maneuvers have at all events, imparted
a mighty impetus to the elements engaged in disorganizing Turkey from within.
The only question is this: does Russia act on her own free impulse, or is she
but the unconscious and reluctant slave of the modern “ Fatum”, Revolution? I
believe the latter alternative. (10)
in New York Tribune, 8 July 1853
We believe that,
if war should break out, it will be because Russia has gone too far to
withdraw with impunity to her honour; and above all, we believe her courage
to be up to this notch simply because she has all the while counted on
England’s connivance... (10)
New York Tribune, 5 August 1853.
The
revolutionary party can only congratulate itself on this state of things. The humiliation
of the reactionary Western governments, and their manifest impotency
to guard the interests of European civilisation against Russian encroachment,
cannot fail to work out a wholesome indignation in the people who have suffered
themselves, since 1849, to be subjected to the rule of counter-revolution. (10)
In his critique of Kautsky’s
pamphlet in which Kautsky approaches the first world war with the point of view
of a “bygone period” of war he points out this factual difference. “Marx himself,” says Lenin,” who condemned wars, as, for instance, in 1854-76, took
sides with one of the belligerents when, despite the will of the
socialists, wat had become a fact. That is the main contention and the chief
trump card in Kautsky’s pamphlet.” And
Lenin criticized the stand of Mr. Potresov who confused the interests of
particular with the interests of general when there is no “general interest of
proletariat. He notes; “by “internationalism” (he) understands finding out the success of which
side in the war is more desirable or less harmful from the standpoint of
the interests of the proletariat not in a particular country but the
world over.”
He follows;
The sophistry
of this reasoning consists in a bygone period of history being
substituted for the present. The following were the main features of the
old wars referred to by Kautsky: (1) they dealt with the problems of
bourgeois-democratic reforms and the overthrow of absolutism or foreign
oppression; (2) the objective prerequisites for a socialist revolution
had not yet matured, and prior to
the war, no socialist could speak of utilising it to “hasten the
downfall of capitalism”, as the Stuttgart (1907) and Basle (1912) resolutions
do; (3) in the countries of neither of the belligerent groups were there any
socialist parties of any strength or mass appeal, and tested in the
struggle.
In short, it
is not surprising that Marx and the Marxists confined themselves to
determining which bourgeoisie’s victory would be more harmless to (or more
favourable to) the world proletariat, at a time when one could
not speak of a general proletarian movement against the governments and the
bourgeoisie of all the belligerent countries. (11)
Lenin in his critique of Potresoy
clarifies the old and new epochs and their class context in regard to Marx attitude to the wars and the question of the “the success of which
bourgeoisie is more desirable”. (I will be quoting entire paragraph in
which one of Lenin’s remarks may seem contradictory at first glance)
Potresov has
failed to notice that, to Marx in 1859 (as well as in a number of later
cases), the question of “the success of which side is more desirable”
meant asking “the success of which bourgeoisie is
more desirable”. Potresov has failed to notice that Marx was working on the
problem at a time when there existed indubitably progressive bourgeois
movements, which moreover did not merely exist, but were in the forefront of the historical
process in the leading states of Europe. Today, it would be ridiculous even to
imagine a progressive bourgeoisie, a progressive bourgeois movement, in,
for instance, such key members of the “Concert” of Europe, as Britain and
Germany. The old bourgeois “democracy” of these two key states has
turned reactionary. Potresov has “forgotten” this and has substituted the standpoint
of the old (bourgeois) so-called democracy for that of present-day
(non-bourgeois) democracy. This shift to the standpoint of another
class, and moreover of an old and outmoded class, is sheer
opportunism. There cannot be the least doubt that a shift like this cannot
be justified by an analysis of the objective content of the historical
process in the old and the new epochs. (12)
Lenin clarifies (I underlined section
which has outmost importance for the 2nd WW)
First of all, these were considerations on the
national movement (in Germany and Italy)—on the latter’s development over the
heads of the “representatives of medievalism”; secondly, these were considerations
on the “main evil” of the reactionary monarchies (the
Austrian, the Napoleonic, etc.) in the Concert of Europe.
These
considerations are perfectly clear and indisputable. Marxists
have never denied the progressiveness of bourgeois national-liberation
movements against feudal and absolutist forces… In those days the
Western bourgeoisie did not give financial support to certain other states; on
the contrary, those states were really “the main evil”… Marx and Engels were
working on the problem of the desirability of success for which
particular bourgeoisie; they were concerned with a modestly liberal
movement developing into a tempestuously democratic one. In
the period of present-day (non-bourgeois) democracy, Potresov is
preaching bourgeois national-liberalism at a time when one cannot even
imagine bourgeois progressive movements, whether modestly liberal or
tempestuously democratic, in Britain, Germany, or France. Marx
and Engels were ahead of their epoch, that of bourgeois-national
progressive movements; they wanted to give an impetus to such movements so
that they might develop “over the heads” of the representatives of medievalism.
Marx’s method
consists, first of all, in taking due account of the objective content of a
historical process at a given moment, in definite and concrete
conditions; this in order to realize, in the first place, the movement of
which class is the mainspring of the progress possible in those concrete
conditions. In 1859, it was not imperialism that comprised the
objective content of the historical process in continental
Europe, but national-bourgeois movements for liberation.” .. Let us suppose that two countries
are at war in the epoch of bourgeois, national-liberation movements. Which
country should we wish success to from the standpoint of present-day
democracy? Obviously, to that country whose success will give a
greater impetus to the bourgeoisie’s liberation movement, make its
development speedier, and undermine feudalism the more decisively. (12)
Lenin’s critique and analysis
which set the attitude towards first WW concluded that “Present-day democracy
will remain true to itself only if it joins neither one nor the other
imperialist bourgeoisie, only if it says that the two sides are
equally bad, and if it wishes the defeat of the imperialist bourgeoisie
in every country. Any other decision will, in reality, be national-liberal
and have nothing in common with genuine internationalism.” Lenin’s stance in World War 1 was the “revolutionary
defeatism” that socialists should refuse to support any imperialist camp
in the war, promote working-class struggle, advocate socialist revolution each within his own belligerent country
as the way to win a peace.
Same Kautskyite revisionists in
different shades claim that Marxist attitudes established a new standard
in World War 1 with Lenin’s polemics of that time for the Marxist response to
wars involving imperialist powers, meaning the “revolutionary
defeatism” was false and realizing that he corrected gradually. Sophistry
of Trotskyites in falsifying and confusing the statements in this case was not
so much different. “He preferred defeat of Russia by Germany. But then,
should the German socialists prefer victory by Germany over Russia? “ they say.
This is a typical cheap shot of Trotskyites. Lenin never said that German socialist should
prefer the victory, but “defeat” in general in all belligerent countries. In
his speech 1918 Lenin says;
In Germany, the
words of the German socialist Friedrich Adler are being spread far and wide
among the workers and soldiers: “Turn your bayonets on your own bourgeoisie instead
of on the Russian workers and peasants.” There is no end in sight to the
slaughter started by the capitalists. The more Germany wins, the more the
savages like her who tag on to the other side… A “defeatist” movement like the one we had has already begun in
Germany, mass strikes are taking place in Italy and Austria; and socialists
are being arrested wholesale in America. (13)
“Defeatism” of Lenin was not a passive stand but an
active one that called for revolutionary action. That has a further meaning than “Marxists should not let their
socialist struggle be limited or restrained by the risk that it might bring on
the defeat of their own country.” It calls for the revolutionary defeatism
for the sake of revolution. So there is
no correction there as the Trotskyite suggests, but defining “defeatism” as far as the struggle is
concerned.
The change of the epoch
from “the success of which bourgeoisie is more desirable” from Marx and Engel’s time to “no
bourgeoisie is desirable “ coined the
new policy of “revolutionary defeatism.”
Marx’s view and approach to the
Tsarist regime as the main focus of reaction and counterrevolution in
the world, and had to be fought harder than any other was not his general political
line on war and peace but related to the that given concrete situation
and conditions.
“In the first epoch,”
says Lenin,
“ the
objective and historical task was to ascertain how, in its struggle against the
chief representatives of a dying feudalism, the progressive
bourgeoisie should “utilize” international conflicts so as to bring the greatest
possible advantage to the entire democratic bourgeoisie of the world. In
the first epoch, over half a century ago, it was natural and inevitable
that the bourgeoisie, enslaved by feudalism, should wish the defeat
of its “own” feudal oppressor, all the more so that the principal and
central feudal strongholds of all-European importance were not so numerous at
the time. This is how Marx “appraised” the conflicts: he ascertained in
which country, in a given and concrete situation, the success of the bourgeois-liberation
movement was more important in undermining the all-European
feudal stronghold.”
The second
epoch or, as Potresov puts it, “a span of forty-five years”
(1870-1914), is characterized very inconclusively by him. The same
incompleteness is the shortcoming in Trotsky’s characterization of the same
period, given in his German work, although he does not agree with
Potresov’s practical conclusions, both writers hardly realize the reason
for their standing so close to each other, in a certain sense. Here
is what Potresov writes of this epoch, which we have called the second, that of
yesterday:
“Neither revolution,
nor war. . .” “Democracy became the more effectively nationalist, the
longer the period of its ‘position warfare’ was protracted and the longer there
lingered on the stage that spell of European history which . . . knew of no
international conflicts in the heart of Europe, and consequently experienced no unrest extending beyond
the boundaries of national state territories and felt no keen interest on a
general European or world scale”
The chief
shortcoming in this characterization, as in Trotsky’s characterization
of the same epoch, is a reluctance to discern and recognize the deep
contradictions in modern democracy, which has developed on the
foundation described above. The impression is produced that the democracy
contemporary with the epoch under review remained a single whole,
which, generally speaking, was pervaded with gradualism, turned nationalist,
was by degrees weaned away from breaks in gradualness and from
catastrophes, and grew petty and mildewed.
In reality
this could not have happened, since, side by side with the aforesaid
tendencies, other and reverse tendencies were undoubtedly operating: the
day-by-day life of the working masses was undergoing an internationalization—the
cities were attracting ever more inhabitants, and living conditions in the
large cities of the whole world were being levelled out; capital was
becoming internationalized, and at the big factories townsmen and
country-folk, both native and alien, were intermingling. The class
contradictions were growing ever more acute…
“All-pervading
gradualism” was in no way the predominant sentiment in all
contemporary democracy, as the writings of Potresov and Trotsky imply.
Take, for
instance, the possession of colonies and the expansion of colonial
possessions. These were undoubted features of the period dealt with
above, and with the majority of big states. What did that mean in the economic
sense? It meant a sum of super-profits and special privileges for the
bourgeoisie. It meant, moreover, the possibility of enjoying crumbs
from this big cake for a small minority of the petty bourgeois, as
well as for the better placed employees, officials of the labour movement, etc.
The enjoyment of crumbs of advantage from the colonies, from privileges, by an
insignificant minority of the working class in Britain, for instance, is
an established fact, recognized and pointed out by Marx and Engels. Formerly
confined to Britain alone, this phenomenon became common to all the
great capitalist countries of Europe, as their colonial possessions
expanded, and in general as the imperialist period of capitalism grew
and developed.
A number of
Trotsky’s tactical and organizational errors spring from his fear, or his
reluctance, or inability to recognize the fact of the
“maturity” achieved by the opportunist trend, and also its intimate and unbreakable
link with the national-liberals (or social-nationalists) of our times.
In practice, this failure to recognize this “maturity” and this
unbreakable link leads, at least, to absolute confusion and helplessness in
the face of the predominant social-nationalist (or national-liberal)
evil.
“At present,
in the third epoch, no feudal fortresses of all-European
significance remain. Of course, it is the task
of present-day democracy to “utilize” conflicts, but—despite Potresov and Kautsky—this
international utilization must be directed, not against individual
national finance capital, but against international finance
capital. The utilization should not be affected by a class
which was on the ascendant fifty or a hundred years ago. At that time, it was a
question of “international action” bythe most advanced bourgeois democracy; today it is another class that is
confronted by a similar task created by history and advanced by the objective
state of affairs.” (13)
Trotskyites and their unconscious
followers take Potresov assertion, “how Marx went about it even when both
sides were “highly reactionary”, and therefore “Marxists too are at
present obliged to make a similar appraisal”, and claim that Lenin agreed at the time. However, in reality, Lenin criticizing
Potresov’s conclusion says:
This
conclusion is either naïve childishness or crass sophistry, since it
boils down to the following: since, in 1859, Marx was working on the problem of
the desirability of success for which particular bourgeoisie, we, over half
a century later, must solve the problem in exactly the same way.
(13)
Trotskyites, in a twisted way insinuating
that nothing is fundamentally change, and
could change claim that “The whole structure of what in 1914 was called (by
Lenin) “Marx’s position on war” rested
upon a series of unsupported assertions,(when Lenin repeated Marx took sides with one of the belligerents when,
despite the will of the socialists, war had become a fact) which
no one has ever found in Marx’s own work”. The reality, however, is that Lenin explains it clearly in his “epochs”
cited above, yet for this shade of Trotskyites Lenin is not Marxist but Trotsky
is. So they claim that when Lenin
stated that “Marx supported the German side as a war of defence
against Bonaparte”, he was exaggerating.
I will not dwell on this subject one can read Marx and Engels articles
and Address on War for that period.
What is crucial is that the underlying
insidious aim is the stand of Stalin and Bolsheviks during the second world
war. They repeat the readymade conclusion and formula that Marx or Engels declared against
supporting either belligerent in a war — even when they specifically recognised
one side or another as more “progressive”. Aside from the bygone period of bourgeois
democratic revolutions against feudalism, during the first world war Lenin’s attitude was not the same before
the revolution and after the revolution. The attitude derived from
not by generalized theories but from the interests of proletariat and of
their struggle. First period, in case of Russia, consideration was the
interests of revolutionary struggle, second was the interests
of revolution itself.
“Abstract theoretical
reasoning” said Lenin, “may lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has
arrived—in a somewhat different fashion but also by abandoning Marxism.”
(14) The scientific concept of imperialism, moreover, is reduced to a
sort of term of abuse applied to the immediate competitors, rivals, and opponents
of imperialists.” (15) Depending on historical conditions, the relationship
of classes and similar data, the attitude towards war must be different at
different times. " (16) Marxist dialectical method forbids the employment
of “ready-made schemes” and abstract formulas, The dialectical method
demands, first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always
in their interconnection with other things. That means even in the same epoch, the
same war attitude may change as the character of war may change with the possible changes in the belligerent
countries.
Lenin criticizing Rosa says, “The
only mistake, however, would be to exaggerate this truth, to depart from the
Marxist requirement of concreteness, to apply the appraisal of this war
to all wars possible under imperialism, to ignore the national
movements against imperialism.”.. A national war might be transformed into
an imperialist war and vice versa.”.. “Only a sophist can disregard the
difference between an imperialist and a national war on the grounds that one
might develop into the other. Not infrequently have dialectics served as a
bridge to sophistry. But we remain dialecticians and we combat sophistry not
by denying the possibility of all transformations in general, but by
analysing the given phenomenon in its concrete setting and development… This
"epoch" has made the policies of the present great powers thoroughly
imperialist, but it by no means precludes national wars”. (17)
Lenin in the same article sets the difference
that most Trotskyites and their tailgaters ignore;
Objectively, the
feudal and dynastic wars were then opposed by revolutionary democratic wars, by
wars for national liberation. This was the content of the historical tasks
of that epoch. At the present time, the objective situation
in the biggest advanced states of Europe is different.
From the standpoint
of progress, from the standpoint of the progressive class, the
imperialist bourgeois war, the war of highly developed capitalism, can,
objectively, be opposed only with a war against the bourgeoisie, i.e.,
primarily civil war for power between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; for
unless such a war is waged, serious progress is impossible; this may be
followed -- only under certain special conditions -- by a war to defend the
socialist state against bourgeois states.
In saying
that the class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion,
Junius applies Marxist dialectics only half way, taking one step on the
right road and immediately deviating from it. Marxist dialectics call
for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation. It is
true that class struggle is the best means of defence against invasion both
when the bourgeoisie is overthrowing feudalism, and when the
proletariat is overthrowing the bourgeoisie Precisely because it is true with
regard to every form of class oppression, it is too general, and therefore,
inadequate in the present specific case. Civil war against the bourgeoisie
is also a form of class struggle..”
In the same
breath Junius quite rightly says that a revolution cannot be "made". Revolution
was on the order of the day in the 1914-16 period. (17)
“Revolutionary Defeatism”
of Lenin worked. “Civil war became a fact” said Lenin on Extraordinary Seventh
Congress. “ The transformation of the imperialist war into civil war,
which we had predicted at the beginning of the revolution, and even at
the beginning of the war, and which considerable sections of socialist circles
treated skeptically and even with ridicule, actually took place on October 25,
1917, in one of the largest and most backward of the belligerent countries…
Individual imperialists had no time to bother with us, solely because the
whole of the great social, political and military might of modern world
imperialism was split by internecine war into two groups. The
imperialist plunderers involved in this struggle had gone to such incredible
lengths, were locked in mortal combat to such a degree, that neither of the
groups was able to concentrate any effective forces against the Russian
revolution. These were the circumstances in which we found ourselves in
October.” (18)
From “defeatism” to “defencism”
Together with the revolution, the character and the direction of the imperialist war has changed significantly. “The
enemies of Soviet Russia” said Lenin, “ surround us in a tight ring of iron
to try to deprive the workers and peasants of everything they gained from the
October Revolution… You will remember, comrades, that at the beginning of the
revolution the French and British never tired of insisting they were the
“allies” of free Russia. And here we have these “allies” today in their true
colours… they have declared war on the Soviets, they have declared war
on the workers and peasants… Now there are two fronts: the workers and
peasants on one side, and the capitalists on the other.”
Analysing the current situation
and the conflicts among the group of imperialists and ways to utilize this conflict
Lenin states the current stand on the war after the revolution;
we tell ourselves
that, if the extremist war party can at any moment defeat any
imperialist coalition and build a new unexpected imperialist coalition
against us, we at any rate will not make it any easier for them. And if
they come against us—yes, we are now defencists—we shall do everything
in our power, everything within the power of diplomatic tactics, we
shall do everything to delay that moment, everything to make the brief
and unstable respite given us in March, last longer.. We have been
defencists since October 25, 1917; we have won the right to
defend our native land. It is not secret treaties that we are defending, we
have annulled and exposed them to the whole world. We are defending our
country against the imperialists. We are defending and we shall win… We
are defencists and look upon our task with all the seriousness taught us by the
four years of war… it is a policy of preparation for defense of our
country, a steadfast policy, not allowing a single step to be taken that
would aid the extremist parties of the imperialist powers in
the East and West. (19)
Following, Lenin states that
this “right” to “defend” from the “defeatist” stand “is not achieved by issuing
declarations, but only by overthrowing the bourgeoisie in one’s own country.
History has proven that Lenin’s
“defeatist” and following “defencist” policy together with the
support of national liberation wars, especially support to nationalist in
Turkey was the correct policy. And his teachings that; “In politics, in which
sometimes extremely complicated—national and international—relationships have
to be dealt with, 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.” (20) “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”
(21) and “Depending on the historical circumstances, the relationship of
classes, etc., the attitude to war must be different at different times “(22)
are important guides to us in our analysis to never ignore.
All of that, either defeatist, or
defencist or (active) neutral stands derive from the fundamental principle of having
the interests of proletariat and of its struggle in mind when we make an
evaluation for the policy and stand. It is never a narrowminded, mechanical
question of which side or more like which bourgeois will be beneficial to
us, it is the question of where the interests of proletariat lie –
not based on abstract general theories but- based on the actual, factual
conditions.
That teaching was what Stalin
followed and applied during the second world war. In a very similar way to First
World War, he made agreement with aggressive
(Lenin calls extremist) Imperialist Germany to prepare for the 2nd
imperialist World War. He reached to other non-aggressive imperialists for an alliance for peace.
Before the war in his
interview Stalin said; In my opinion there are two seats of war danger.
The first is in the Far East, in the zone of Japan. I have in mind the
numerous statements made by Japanese military men containing threats against
other powers. The second seat is in the zone of Germany. It is hard to
say which is the most menacing, but both exist and are active. Compared with
these two principal seats of war danger, the Italian-Abyssinian war is an
episode. At present, the Far Eastern seat of danger reveals the
greatest activity. However, the centre of this danger may shift to
Europe. (23)
Three years later in his Report
on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the
C.P.S.U.(B.) Stalin said;
What changes
exactly have taken place in the international situation in this period? In what
way exactly have the foreign and internal affairs of our country changed?
For the
capitalist countries this period was one of very profound perturbations in
both the economic and political spheres. In the economic sphere these were
years of depression, followed, from the beginning of the latter half of 1937,
by a period of new economic crisis, of a new decline of industry in the
United States, Great Britain, and France; consequently, these were years of
new economic complications. In the political sphere they were years of serious
political conflicts and perturbations… The entire post-war system, the
so-called regime of peace, has been shaken to its foundations.
Let us now
examine the concrete data illustrating the changes in the international
situation.
1. New Economic
Crisis in the Capitalist Countries, Intensification of the Struggle for Markets
and Sources of Raw Material, and for a New Redivision of the World.
The economic
crisis which broke out in the capitalist countries in the latter half of
1929 lasted until the end of 1933. After that the crisis passed into a
depression, and was then followed by a certain revival, a certain upward trend
of industry. But this upward trend of industry did not develop into a boom, as
is usually the case in a period of revival. On the contrary, in the latter
half of 1937 a new economic crisis began which seized the United States
first of all and then England, France and a number of other countries.
The capitalist
countries thus found themselves faced with a new economic crisis before they
had even recovered from the ravages of the recent one.
This
circumstance naturally led to an increase of unemployment. The number of
unemployed in capitalist countries, which had fallen from thirty million in
1933 to fourteen million in 1937, has now again risen to eighteen million as a
result of the new economic crisis.
A
distinguishing feature of the new crisis is that it differs in many respects
from the preceding one, and, moreover, differs for the worse and not for
the better.
…the present
crisis has broken out not in time of peace, but at a
time when a second imperialist war has already begun; at a
time when Japan, already in the second year of her war with China,
is disorganizing the immense Chinese market and rendering it almost
inaccessible to the goods of other countries; when Italy and Germany have
already placed their national economy on a war footing, squandering
their reserves of raw material and foreign currency for this purpose; and when all
the other big capitalist powers are beginning to
reorganize themselves on a war footing.
…as distinct
from the preceding crisis, the present crisis is not a general one,
but as yet involves chiefly the economically powerful countries which have
not yet placed themselves on a war economy basis. As regards the aggressive
countries, such as Japan, Germany, and Italy, 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
it. This means that by the time the economically powerful,
non-aggressive countries begin to emerge from the phase of crisis the
aggressive countries, having exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material
in the course of the war fever, are bound to enter a phase of very severe
crisis.
… It is no longer a question
of competition in the markets, of a commercial war, of dumping. These
methods of struggle have long been recognized as inadequate. It
is now a question of a new redivision of the world, of spheres of
influence and colonies, by military action.
the bloc of
three aggressive states came to be formed. A new redivision of the world by
means of war became imminent.
After the
first imperialist war the victor states, primarily Britain, France, and the
United States, set up a new regime in the relations between countries, the
post-war peace regime. .. However, three
aggressive states, Japan tore up the Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy
the Versailles Treaty, and the new imperialist war launched by them,
upset the entire system of this post-war peace regime. In order to have their
hands free, these three states withdrew from the League of Nations. The new
imperialist war became a fact. (24)
The determination of the type of
war was not different – it was an imperialist war,” but with distinctions from the previous
imperialist war. Stalin evaluated the character of this distinction with the
questions;
To what are we
to attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new
imperialist war?
How is it that
the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast
opportunities, have so easily and without resistance abandoned their
positions and their obligations to please the aggressors?
Is it to be
attributed to the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Of course not!
Combined, the non-aggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger
than the fascist states, both economically and militarily.
To what then are we
to attribute the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors?
(24)
Stalin was clearly making a
distinction between the (extremist) aggressive imperialists and non-aggressive imperialists.
He explained;
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." (24)
In reference to “neutrality,” “non-intervention”
which is so widely used as a ready-made formulas, Stalin’s explanation was enlightening.
Formally
speaking, the policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows:
"Let
each country defend itself against 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. (24)
In 1942, after the alliance is
made with the non-aggressive ones against the aggressive imperialists , Stalin
responded to the question of “What is the Soviet view of the Allied campaign
in Africa?”
The Soviet view
of this campaign is that it represents an outstanding fact of major
importance, demonstrating the growing might of the armed forces of the
Allies and opening the prospect of the disintegration of the
Italy-German coalition in the nearest future. (25)
Stalin was not shy to
congratulate the victories of her alliances
on his telegraphs to different leaders he stated;
I
congratulate you and the valiant American and British troops on the brilliant
victory which has resulted in the liberation of Bizerta and Tunis from
Hitler’s tyranny. I wish you further successes. (26)
In 1944, Stalin in his Speech at
Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and
Moscow Party and Public Organizations said;
The past year
has been a year of triumph of the common cause of the anti-German
coalition for the sake of which the peoples of the Soviet Union, Great
Britain and the United States of America have united in fighting alliance.
The decision of
the Teheran Conference on joint actions against Germany and
the brilliant realization of that decision are one of the striking indications
of the consolidation of the front of the anti-Hitler Coalition. There are few
instances in history of plans for large-scale military operations undertaken in
joint actions against a common enemy being carried out so
fully and with such precision as the plan for a joint blow against Germany
drawn up at the Teheran Conference.
… There is talk of differences between
the three Powers on certain security problems. Differences
do exist, of course, and they will arise on a number of other issues
as well... What matters is not that there are differences, but
that these differences do not transgress the bounds of what the
interests of the unity of the three Great Powers allow, and that, in
the long run, they are resolved in accordance with the interests of that unity.
To win the
war against Germany is to accomplish a great historic task. But to win
the war does not in itself mean to ensure for the peoples a lasting
peace and guaranteed security in the future. The task is not only to
win the war but also to make new aggression and new war impossible—if
not for ever, then at least for a long time to come. (27)
Stalin did not have the illusion
that the non-aggressive imperialists will not change its character. His policy
was the policy of “utilizing” the contradictions between the imperialist powers
for the best interests of the proletariat in particular and in general. Existing
conditions and situations required for the duration the task to be “utilizing”
the conflict ,not against all
international finance capital but against individual national finance
capital, whereas before the October Revolution, during the
first world war , it was the other way around.
In his interview of 1946 Stalin says ;
Mr. Churchill
now takes the stand of the warmongers, and in this Mr. Churchill
is not alone. He has friends not only in Britain but in the
United States of America as well.
A point to be
noted is that in this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a
striking resemblance to Hitler and his friends. Hitler began his work
of unleashing war by proclaiming a race theory, declaring that only
German-speaking people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets
out to unleash war with a race theory, asserting that only
English-speaking nations are superior nations, who are called upon to decide
the destinies of the entire world. Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain
and the United States, present to the non-English speaking nations something in
the nature of an ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all
will be well; otherwise, war is inevitable.”… There can be no doubt that
Mr. Churchill’s position is a war position. (28)
In his 1951 interview Stalin
responds to the question “Do you
consider a new world war inevitable?”:
At least at the
present time it cannot be considered inevitable… 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.
Peace will be
preserved and consolidated if the people take the cause of preserving
peace into their own hands and will defend it to the end. 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. (29)
As the First WW started as an
imperialist war, the second WW started as an imperialist war with each had its
distinctive character. Unlike those who claims the second world war was not an
imperialist war, Stalin clearly states;
the
Second World War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between
capitalist countries. Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a
socialist land, is more dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist
countries; for whereas war between capitalist countries puts in
question only the supremacy of certain capitalist countries over others, war
with the U.S.S.R. must certainly put in question the existence of capitalism
itself. Secondly, because the capitalists, although they clamor, for
"propaganda" purposes, about the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union,
do not themselves believe that it is aggressive, because they are aware of the
Soviet Union's peaceful policy and know that it will not itself attack
capitalist countries.
After the First
World War it was similarly believed that Germany had been definitely put out of
action… that Germany would never rise to her feet
again, and that there would be no more wars between capitalist countries. In
spite of this, Germany rose to her feet again as a great power within
the space of some fifteen or twenty years after her defeat… Britain and the United States that helped
Germany to recover economically and to enhance her economic war
potential. Of course, when the United States and Britain assisted Germany's
economic recovery, they did so with a view to setting a recovered
Germany against the Soviet Union, to utilizing her against the land of
socialism. But Germany directed her forces in the first place against the
Anglo-French-American bloc.
Consequently,
the struggle of the capitalist countries for markets and their desire
to crush their competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the
contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.
What guarantee
is there, then, that Germany and Japan will not rise to their feet again, will
not attempt to break out of American bondage and live their own independent
lives? I think there is no such guarantee. But it follows
from this that the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries remains
in force… To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to
abolish imperialism. (30)
As we see each and every war, despite
its general class context, had different characters based on the
existent condition and situation and based on the economic and military
policy that is followed by the belligerent countries. As Lenin warned that
relying on “the ready-made conclusions one had acquired, without putting
in a great deal of serious and hard work, without understanding the
facts which he must examine critically, one would be a very deplorable Communist.” (3)
Using ready-made conclusions and formulas will force
one to sophistry. “By means of patent sophistry, Marxism is stripped of its
revolutionary living spirit; everything is recognised in Marxism except the
revolutionary methods of struggle” (31) It is this sophistry that ignored
and keeps on ignoring the anti-fascist civil war waged in Ukraine. “The distinction between
subjectivism (sophistry) and dialectics,” says Lenin, “incidentally, is that
in (objectivism) dialectics, thedifference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative. For
objective dialectics there is an absolute within the relative. For subjectivism
and sophistry, the relative is only relative and excludes the absolute. (32) Comparing
this current war with the 1st WW with arguments based on readymade conclusions is as much ridiculous
sophistry as it was for Kautsky’s entire line of argument was.
Skipping the 2nd
WW, its conditions, situation, and the attitude thereof, the sophistry of
arguments of Ukraine war is identical to 1st WW, is so manifest that it,
actually and sadly is embarrassing to analyse it. Any analysis and
study that fails to examine the
circumstances of 2nd WW and the attitudes of Bolsheviks thoroughly, in Lenin’s words’ is nothing more nor less than bourgeois sophistry.”
“Speaking of the Sophists,”
says Lenin, “ Hegel in extreme detail chews over the thought that sophistry
contains an element common to all culture
in general, our own included, namely, the adducing of proofs and counterproofs—“reflecting reasoning”;—the
finding of the most diverse points of view in everything; (subjectivity—lack
of objectivity). (33)
Let’s conclude with Lenin’s
critique of Plekhanov in a similar issue is striking and valuable in this sense
and valid for the current.
“Plekhanov“ ,Lenin Says, “sophistically
denounces German opportunism so as to shield French and Russian opportunism.
The result is not a struggle against international opportunism, but support
for it. He sophistically bemoans the fate of Belgium, while saying nothing
about Galicia. He sophistically confuses the period of imperialism
(i.e., one in which, as all Marxists hold, the objective conditions are ripe
for the collapse of capitalism, and there are masses of socialist
proletarians), and the period of bourgeois-democratic national movements;
in other words, he confuses a period in which the destruction of bourgeois
fatherlands by an international revolution of the proletariat is imminent,
and the period of their inception and consolidation. He sophistically
accuses the German bourgeoisie of having broken the peace, while remaining
silent about the lengthy and elaborate preparations for a war against
Germany by the bourgeoisie of the “Triple Entente.” … To analyse all of
Plekhanov’s sophisms would require a series of articles, and many of his
ridiculous absurdities are hardly worth going into. We shall touch upon only
one of his alleged arguments. In 1870 Engels wrote to Marx that Wilhelm Liebknecht
was mistaken in making anti-Bismarckism his sole guiding principle.
Plekhanov was glad to have discovered the quotation: the same is true, he
argues, with regard to anti-tsarism! Let us, however, try to replace
sophistry (i.e., the method of clutching at the outward similarity of
instances, without considering the nexus between events) with dialectics
(i.e., the method of studying all the concrete circumstances of an event and
of its development). The unification of Germany was a necessity which Marx
recognised as such both prior to and following 1848. As early as 1859, Engels
called forthright upon the German people to fight for unification. When
unification through revolution failed, Bismarck achieved it in a
counter-revolutionary, Junker fashion, Anti-Bismarckism became absurd as a
sole principle, since the necessary unification was an accomplished fact.
But what about Russia? Did our brave Plekhanov
formerly have the courage to declare that Russia’s development demanded the
conquest of Galicia, Constantinople, Armenia, Persia, etc.? Does he have
the courage to say so now? Has he considered that Germany had to progress
from the national disunity of the Germans (who had been oppressed both by France
and Russia in the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century) to a unified
nation, whereas in Russia the Great Russians have crushed rather than united a
number of other nations? Without giving thought to such things, Plekhanov
has simply masked his chauvinism by distorting the meaning of the Engels
quotation of 1870 in the same fashion as Südekum has distorted an 1891
quotation from Engels to the effect that the Germans must wage a
life-and-death struggle against the allied armies of France and Russia. (34)
History, without a doubt shows
that the attitude of Marxist Leninists to the wars, from Marx & Engels
to Lenin to Stalin, fundamentally had
one thing in mind; the interests of proletariat and her struggle, and
determination of how to “utilize” these conflicts so that it brings the greatest possible advantage for
them. Not the memorized and sloganized general theories and ready made
conclusions, but the concrete assessment of concrete situation for the
fundamental interests in mind.
Subjectivity, determination of a
stand based on ready-made conclusions and formulas fitting the subjectivity, forces one to sophistry in order to support
the subjective determination rather than
studying all the concrete circumstances of an event and of
its development. That is the sophistry
of chauvinism , sophistry to side with US-NATO fascist aggressive
imperialism through pacifism, through ignorance of the anti-fascist civil war,
which transforms into an active support of US-NATO in deed for it
conceals the concrete facts and revises Marxism Leninism with the sophistry.
It is a necessity to emphasize an important assessment of
Stalin, especially in relation to the current situation as a conclusion.
“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.” (35)
Erdogan A
May 2022
NOTES
1. Lenin, Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution
2. Report of Court Proceedings: The case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre–1937, Moscow: Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R
3. Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues
4. Lenin, The Collapse of the Second International
5. Lenin, Apropos of an Anniversary
6. Report by O.W. Kuusinen, From 13th Plenum of ECCI
7. Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the World Economy
8. Lenin, Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
9. Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and War
10. Marx Engels, articles in The New York Tribune
11. Lenin, The Social-Chauvinists’ Sophisms , May 1, 1915
12. Lenin, Under a False Flag
13. Lenin, Speech At A Meeting In Butyrsky District August 2, 1918
14. Lenin, Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
15. Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the World Economy
16. Lenin, Lecture on the Proletariat, and War
17. Lenin, Junius Pamphlet
18. Lenin, Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
19. Lenin, Report On Foreign Policy
20. Lenin, Left-wing Communism
21. Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution
22. Lenin, Lecture on Proletarian and War
23. Stalin Interview Roy Howard, March 1, 1936
24. Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
25. Stalin, The Allied Campaign in Africa Answers to Associated Press Moscow Correspondent
26. Stalin, To President Roosevelt
27. Stalin, Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of Working People’s Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations
28. Stalin, Interview to “Pravda” Correspondent Concerning Mr. Winston Churchill’s Speech at Fulton, March 1946
29. Stalin, interview with correspondent of Pravda, February 16, 1951
30. Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR, 1951
31. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution, and the Renegade Kautsky
32. Lenin, On the Question of Dialectics
33. Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Book Lectures On the History of Philosophy, 1915
34. Lenin, The Russian Brand of Südekum, February 1, 1915
35. Stalin, Interview with "Pravda" Correspondent February 17, 1951
.jpg)
No comments