The Marxist norms and Marxist criticism among the communists and parties on international relations
Although there may be exceptional situations, it is not common to see serious and genuine communist parties criticizing the communist parties in their theory and practices related to their internal affairs. This applies to the communists in general whether it is individual or organization. Every communist, communist organization and party would know the existing condition and situation of their own country better than those outsiders who have no serious knowledge of culture, traditions, history and existing conditions of that given country other than the knowledge it/ he/she acquired from the bourgeois sources. Bourgeois sources are never the choice of Marxist Leninists. They rely on the information they gather from the Marxist Leninists of that given country in order to understand and have a better idea on what is going on in that given country and inform its own population based on that acquired knowledge, not based on Western Media narratives and information.
The irony is that they “criticize”
communists of other countries in the name of “internationalism”. In
reality, reading through the writings of these “critiques” one cannot even
get an idea on the struggles and conditions about their own countries. They
act as if they are the “international” authority disregarding the struggles in their own
country. They criticize every Communist party , parties with socialist inclination
and direction, every anti-imperialist struggles, every anti-fascist
struggles except related to their
own. They dish out that practice as “internationalist” duty.
However, they forget Lenin’s statement that "Socialists
in every country must expose their own government and their own
bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism,
internationalism is a sheer deception of the people... He is an internationalist who in a really
internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own
social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites". (1) Comparing their practice with Lenin’s statement it is
easy to see that they actually are “pacifists” within their own countries
hiding behind “ultra left” slogans and
pontifications focusing on criticizing the communists of other countries.
Let’s see how their actions fits
with the concept of Marxist-Leninist criticism.
Marxist Criticism
"Marxist criticism”, said Lunacharsky, “is a science because it opposes
subjectivism, aestheticism, individualism, irrationalism, and other vices
of bourgeois aesthetics. Criticism, by its nature, cannot be only negative,
aimed at exposing some vicious concept. Even in denial, the Marxist
critic pursues positive goals, offers constructive solutions. The
Marxist critic "removes" the wrong conception in order to form
one that meets the interests of the proletariat.” (2)
Reading through the criticism of
these pontificators one can see neither objectivism nor constructive
solutions. They cannot be objective because they have no way of
knowing the objective truth and concrete conditions of a country thousands of
miles away. It is subjective because they rely on secondary or tertiary sources,
in most cases, imperialist bourgeois sources. As far as coming up with “constructive
solutions” , they cannot come up with one in their “critic for the same reason.
They have to have objective knowledge of concrete conditions and objective
truth of that given country in order to make an objective analysis and come up
with “constructive solutions”. That is
why their critiques cannot go beyond petty bourgeois pontification and thus
cannot be considered Marxist Criticism because “being a science, Marxist
criticism builds its conclusions in the form of concepts and logical
conclusions, that is, it uses scientific tools” (2) which prerequisite
the knowledge for objective analysis of objective conditions.
The confusion of the difference
between criticism among the communists within a given country and criticism
of the communists of other countries manifests itself sharply in the practice
of these pontificators. They do not focus on the struggle within their own
country but focus on the critique of the struggles in other countries. That has
become a way to escape from their responsibilities and duties within their own
countries hiding behind the mask of “internationalism” . However, Lenin defined socialist
internationalism differently;
“There is one,
and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working
whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the
revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by
propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this,
line, in every country without exception.” (3)
Marxist Leninist parties proceed
from the principle that differences and misunderstandings may arise among
various parties and states, even when they have relations of close friendship. In
case of differences, problems and conflicting situations, Communist Parties of
countries settle their differences
on a Marxist-Leninist road, through mutual consultations and comradely
explanations, never making them public. This is a principle that
should be implemented between socialist countries and between communist parties.
It is the Marxist-Leninist norms that regulate
relations among communist parties. Based on Marxist Leninist norms, criticism
of mistakes observed in the line and the activity of this or that party should
be objective, reciprocal, principled, constructive and in a comradely manner. Criticism is not
to dictate and impose one’s views on others, especially on the smaller
parties of other countries. Criticism should be constructive and defending the struggles
of the Communists, anti-imperialists, and anti-fascists and the
fate of the revolution if they were
successful in their struggles.
What we witness in our days,
however the pontificating of so
called “communists” carrying out the bourgeois concept of
“criticism” either with bourgeois
“balanced” approach to the events, or totally siding with the imperialists,
fascists, and anti-communists. There is nothing objective in their criticism or
anything constructive. In most cases
criticisms are made in the name of communists against communists on
the side of anti-communists.
If and when they are cornered,
the pontificators, who in most cases are
Kautskyite-Bernsteinists, better to say “NED-Communists”, call on the slogan of
“freedom of criticism”, and “internationalist duty” as their defense. As we
have seen, interfering internal communist affairs of another country has
nothing to do with internationalism or “ freedom of criticism” in
Marxist-Leninist sense.
We are not living in early 1900
where Marxism and Leninism was in their early stages of spreading and maturing.
We live in the first quarter of 2000 where most every country has its own
communist parties or organisations in different degrees of experience and maturity.
However, ideological struggle never ends. Like in early 1900, today too Kautskyites-Bernsteinists under different disguise cry out for “freedom
of criticism”. What Lenin criticized in 1901-02 remained to be an ongoing
subject between those who defend the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and those
who try to revise it in a way acceptable to and for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, especially that of
imperialist bourgeoisie.
"Freedom of
criticism", said Lenin, “ is undoubtedly the most fashionable
slogan at the present time, and the one most frequently employed in the
controversies between the Socialists and democrats of all countries.” (4) Giving due credit to them, Kautskyites-Bernsteinists
have long history and experience in presenting themselves as the defenders of
Marxism-Leninism after the death of Lenin.” In fact, it is no secret that two
trends have taken shape in the present-day international” said Lenin then, and continued ;” What this "new" trend,
which adopts a "critical" attitude towards "obsolete
dogmatic" Marxism, represents has with sufficient precision been stated by
Bernstein, and demonstrated by Millerand…The very conception, "ultimate
aim," was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the
proletariat was absolutely rejected…He who does not deliberately close his eyes
cannot fail to see that the new "critical" trend in Socialism is
nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism.” (4)
Liberalism that makes up
the essence of opportunism in theory and practice has become the
dominating trend of the pontificators hiding behind ultra-left slogans and as
the critiques of communists of other
countries.
Internal criticism is a different
question but still based on the same Marxist-Leninist norms. Criticism and
self-criticism, which belongs to the very heart of the Marxist dialectical
method, means that theory and practice must always be matched up with one
other, and it should be constructive and conclusive . “A party is invincible,”
wrote Stalin, “if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, if it does not
gloss over the mistakes and defects in its work, if it teaches and educates its
cadres by drawing the lessons from the mistakes in party work, and if it knows
how to correct its mistakes in time.” (5) In internal criticism this may be done
publicly, but on international scale , as long as the question is an internal
affair of a country, it cannot be made publicly unless it is an objective, reciprocal, principled, constructive criticism structured in a comradely manner which will not turn
into an unending abstract polemic and will be used by the imperialist
bourgeoisie for their own interests in their ideological warfare against
communism.
The latest events,
especially since the “protests in Cuba”
what we have been experiencing is pontification of the
Kautskyites-Bernsteinists against the communists and communist parties. This is
being carried out in the name of communism against the communists, anti-imperialist,
and anti-fascists . This, in deed is
being carried out from the ranks of imperialist bourgeois block with criticism
prettified with Marxist Leninist brushes.
Reiterating Lenin’s words;
"Socialists in every country must expose their own government
and their own bourgeoisie...Lacking that, all talk of socialism,
syndicalism, internationalism is a sheer deception of the people... He is an internationalist who in a really
internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own
social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites".
Because, again in Lenin’s words;
“There is
one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working
whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the
revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by
propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this,
line, in every country without exception.” (3)
All these petty bourgeois,
arrogant, know-it-all pontificators
should be exposed and their poisonous critiques of communists should be debunked
by explaining that their criticism of communists of other countries has nothing
to do with internationalism or freedom of criticism but everything to do with serving
the interests of imperialist bourgeoisie against the interests of progressive
forces. Although it is largely known fact, they should be exposed that they are
hiding behind these criticisms in order to conceal their pacifist, reformist approaches in their own countries.
According to pontificators, every other communist party and/or organisation in the world is inferior to them and either revisionist, opportunist or "fake communists" so that they have to dictate and impose their own subjective views on them. It is subjective because they look at them through the Western arrogant, condescending petty bourgeois glasses assuming the West is the World and only their culture, norms and history count in analysing and determining everything.
According to pontificators, since they themselves with their vast "knowledge" couldn't have (never mind defeating the fascism in some cases) built a socialism in their own country, then it is impossible for the others to do so.
According to the pontificators, if in a country in where the political power is in the hands of Communists and it is not developed economically, they are not "genuine" communists, and yet, if they succeed in developing their economy, then, they are capitalists not communists. The message the pontificators are giving is that only the capitalists are capable of developing economy, socialists are not.
They are pontificators with ultra left words but nothing in deeds, even in their own countries, spreading anti-communism either consciously or unconsciously.
As Enver Hoxha pointed out, " the correct Leninist course demands deeds, not words..."
Erdogan A
September 30, 2025
(1) Lenin, Theses for an Appeal
to the International Socialist Committee and All Socialist Parties
(2) Lunacharsky, the formation of
Marxist criticism
(3) Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our
Revolution,
(4) Lenin, What is to Be Done, Dogmatism
And "Freedom Of Criticism"
(5) Joseph Stalin, The National
Question and Leninism
.jpg)
