The Marxist norms and Marxist criticism among the communists and parties on international relations
Criticism of foreign communist parties, offered publicly and in the name of 'internationalism,' has become endemic. Yet this practice—when conducted without direct knowledge, constructive purpose, or comradely channels—does not strengthen the international movement. It serves the enemy. What is worse is that the “criticism”, more like pontification and sophistry, lands them on the side of anti-communists, fascists, monarchists, and imperialists against the communists in most cases.
Although exceptions exist, it is uncommon to see serious, genuine communist parties criticize other communist parties on their theories and practices related to internal affairs. This applies to communists in general, whether individuals or organizations. Every communist, communist organization, and party knows the existing conditions and situation of their own country better than outsiders who have no serious knowledge of that country's culture, traditions, history, and conditions beyond what they acquired from bourgeois sources. Bourgeois sources are never the choice of Marxist Leninists. They rely on information they gather from the Marxist Leninists of that country to understand what is going on there and to inform their own population based on that knowledge, not on Western Media narratives and information.
The irony is that they “criticize”
communists of other countries in the name of “internationalism”. In
reality, reading these “critiques,” one cannot even get a sense of the struggles and conditions in 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 struggle, every anti-fascist
struggle except related to their
own. They present 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 fit
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)
- Lacks objective knowledge of concrete conditions
- Offers no constructive, context-specific solutions
- Relies on bourgeois sources for information
- Is conducted publicly rather than through comradely channels
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 on critiquing 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 principle should be applied between socialist countries and between communist parties.
Marxist-Leninist norms 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 defend 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 a bourgeois
“balanced” approach to the events, or totally siding with the imperialists,
fascists, and anti-communists. Their criticism is neither objective nor 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 in the internal communist affairs of another country has
nothing to do with internationalism or “ freedom of criticism” in the Marxist-Leninist sense.
*NED-Communists"—a term referring to individuals and organizations funded, directly or indirectly, by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy and similar institutions that use 'democracy promotion' as a cover for ideological warfare against socialist and anti-imperialist movements.
We are not living in the early 1900s,
where Marxism and Leninism were in their early stages of spreading and maturing.
We live in the first quarter of the 2000s, when almost every country has its own communist parties or organizations, each with different degrees of experience and maturity.
However, ideological struggle never ends. As in the early 1900s, today too Kautskyites-Bernsteinists, under different disguises, cry out for “freedom
of criticism”. What Lenin criticized in 1901-02 remains 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 the 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 critics of communists of other
countries.
All of the above concerns external criticism—the public critique of one country's communist party by others. This is categorically different from internal criticism, which is a necessary and healthy part of party life within a given country.
As Stalin noted, a party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, learns from its mistakes, and corrects them in time. (5) This internal process may be conducted publicly, within the national context. But on the international level, as long as the question is an internal affair of a sovereign party, public criticism is impermissible unless it meets the stringent criteria of objectivity, constructiveness, and comradely purpose—and even then, private channels are the norm."
Internal criticism is a different
question, but it still rests on the same Marxist-Leninist norms. Criticism and
self-criticism, which belong to the very heart of the Marxist dialectical
method, mean that theory and practice must always be matched up with one
another, 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-imperialists,
and anti-fascists. This, indeed, is
being carried out from the ranks of the 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 a well-known fact, they should be exposed for hiding behind these criticisms to conceal their pacifist, reformist approaches in their own countries.
According to pontificators:
- every other communist party and/or organization 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 Western arrogant, condescending petty bourgeois glasses, assuming the West is the World and only their culture, norms, and history count in analyzing and determining everything.
- Since they themselves, with their vast "knowledge," couldn't have (never mind defeating fascism in some cases) built socialism in their own country, then the others can't do so.
- If in a country 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 pattern is consistent: if a communist-led country is economically underdeveloped, the pontificators declare it not 'genuinely' socialist. If it develops successfully, they declare it capitalist. The implicit message is that only capitalists can develop economies—socialists cannot. This is not Marxism; it is anti-communism disguised as critique.
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..."
This confusion between legitimate internal struggle and illegitimate external warfare is not accidental. It is the very mechanism through which capitalist ideological warfare operates—dividing socialists, discrediting anti-imperialist struggles, and turning communists against one another. Recognizing this is the first condition for unity.
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
