We are 100% on the side of the Iranian people and their anti-imperialist struggle.
This assessment is a common ,
rote, abstract, and impractical assertion that "the war and
political tensions between Iran and Israel are a manifestation of imperialist
rivalry in the Middle East." Israel's hostility, specifically toward
Iran and generally toward the entire region, dates back decades to the
unipolar world order, a time when there were no "competing
imperialist" countries.
Those who call themselves socialists must first understand what "imperialism" is in its holistic and scientific sense. Some who have no idea what imperialism go so far as to call Iran an imperialist country. Lenin said, "Abstract theoretical reasoning can lead to the conclusion reached by Kautsky – in a slightly different way, but also by abandoning Marxism ." (1)
The concept
of imperialism has been reduced, in a scientific sense, to a
kind of insulting term directed at the direct rivals, enemies, and opponents of
the imperialists.” (2) For these “memorized” theorists, every
developed country, even every underdeveloped country, is “imperialist” if
this definition fits their subjective point of view .
Subjectivity compels one to resort to sophistries to support their subjective
determination, rather than examining all the concrete conditions of an event
and its development, by establishing a position based on ready-made conclusions
and formulas that suit subjectivity . This is the sophistry
of chauvinism; the sophistry of supporting the fascist aggressive
imperialism of the US-NATO through pacifism; which effectively turns
into active support for the US-NATO by concealing concrete facts and
reinterpreting Marxism-Leninism with sophistry .
The imperialist attack against
Iran is an anti-imperialist war for Iran, but an imperialist
war for the US and Israel. To claim otherwise with fallacies and to take a
stance based on that is tantamount to siding with aggressive, genocidal
imperialism.
While we already have numerous
anarcho-Trotskyists who hide behind far-left slogans and advocate pacifism, now
Kautskyist-Trotskyism has emerged that defends a unipolar world order, rejects
all forms of anti-imperialist struggle, advocates for a so-called world "socialist
revolution," but promotes pacifism in action. These are two
sides of the same coin, complementing each other.
Stalin described this distortion
and its consequences as follows.
“I understand the declaration of
nine Communist Parties the following way: communists want to defend,
above all, the independence and sovereignty of individual countries and the
durable peace between them. They want to continue fighting for
democracy against reaction and the remnants of fascism. Further, they want to
seriously improve the situation of the working class, and they will always be
against anyone who tries to prevent this. They want to resist
imperialism in general and the world supremacy by any single country. I
think that if the socialists do not understand the need to tackle these
issues, then there is a danger that the communists
themselves will aggregate all the democratic forces themselves. ” (3)
If we recall the teachings of
Lenin and Stalin, every blow struck against imperialists and
colonialists, regardless of its class nature or the form it
takes, is a victory on the path to socialist struggle . This
is especially important for colonial, semi-colonial, and feudal countries where
the working class is virtually nonexistent and there is no genuine communist
party capable of leading the masses.
Stalin emphasized the Leninist
approach and stance in a way that left no room for
confusion: " The revolutionary character of a national
movement under conditions of imperialist oppression does not
necessitate the presence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence
of a revolutionary or republican program, or the existence of a democratic
basis . The struggle waged by the Emir of Afghanistan for the
independence of Afghanistan, despite the monarchist views of the Emir
and his associates, is objectively a revolutionary struggle because
it weakens, shatters, and undermines imperialism."
In the same article, Stalin
provides a clear and undeniable example of how, in the name of the left today,
one can side with reaction by opposing anti-imperialist struggles;
“For the same reasons, the
struggle of Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals for
the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, even
though the leaders of the Egyptian national movement were of bourgeois
origin and held bourgeois titles, and were opposed to socialism;
However, the struggle of the
British “Labour” Government to maintain Egypt’s dependent
status is, for the same reasons, a reactionary struggle, even though the
members of the government are of proletarian origin and have the title of
proletarian, and are “on the side” of socialism. ( 4)
Therefore, the independence
struggle waged by the Iranian mullahs against America and
Israel is objectively a progressive struggle . Those who
oppose this independence struggle by distorting theories, even if they are
socialist supporters, are objectively reactionary.
In Lenin’s words, “the evaluation
of an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial struggle must be made in terms of
the current results of the general balance sheet of the struggle
against imperialism ; that is, not individually, but on a global scale .”
(5)
While we're on the subject ,
let's also touch upon the military coups in Africa, which are based on the same
content and principles, and the opposition to anti-imperialist struggles there
for the same or similar rote reasons, such as " we are
against every coup."
In numerous
correspondences, Lenin pointed out that it was foolish to
call the army revolt, an attempt by a group of
officers to overthrow the government a "coup ." "Now,
in assessing the Irish uprising (an attempt by a group of officers to
overthrow the government), both Radek and Kulisher foolishly call
it a 'coup.' The question of a 'military coup' should be
considered not in the context of bourgeois pacifism, but on the
basis of its progressive or reactionary character." (6)
As Lenin said, "The term
'coup' in a scientific sense can only be used when the attempted uprising
reveals only a circle of conspirators or idiotic maniacs and does not
arouse any sympathy among the masses ." ... " A person who
expects a 'pure' social revolution will never see it. Such a
person supports the revolution for the sake of it without
understanding what the revolution is ." (7) "If, on the one hand , we
repeat thousands of times that we are 'against' all national oppression,
and on the other hand , we characterize the heroic revolt of
the most active and enlightened section of certain classes in an oppressed
nation against their oppressors as a 'coup,' we descend to the same
level of stupidity as the Kautskyists. " (8)
We welcome the military coups
in the Sahel region, and especially in Burkina Faso , as they
represent a blow against imperialism and colonial plunder.
In conclusion, the slogan
"One cannot be anti-imperialist without being anti-capitalist" is
based on an anti-Leninist point of view, rooted in the idea of Trotskyist, “anti-imperialist struggles (once championed by Rosa Luxemburg) are
a thing of the past .” Based on this
view , they are opposing the anti-imperialist, political independence
struggles in Iran, Venezuela, and other developing countries simply because
their governments are not "socialist". This is an
anti-Marxist-Leninist approach and stance that particularly serves the
interests of aggressive imperialism.
Let's summarize the main theme of
the article: Under conditions of imperialist oppression, persecution, and
an imminent attack on the country, even if these protests begin
with genuinely just, and democratic demands, they cannot be supported
if the protesters do not take into account and are
indifferent to imperialist conspiracies, and if their demands
are not integrated with anti-imperialist slogans. Because, as history has
shown, these protests become, or are used as, a tool and proxy of the
imperialist powers.
To put it simply, the Leninist
slogan is NOT " One cannot be anti-imperialist without being
anti-capitalist." On the contrary, the Leninist slogan is "one
cannot be anti-capitalist without being anti-imperialist . "
Leninists do not deny the
possibility of exceptional circumstances. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism necessitates for a concrete assessment of any given specific
situations, with direct dialectical connection between the particular and the general in order to adopt the correct stance at any given time and place.
Erdogan A
January 9, 2026
Notes
(1)
Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin's Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy
(2) Lenin, Preface to N.
Bukharin's Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy
(3) Stalin
and British Labor secret conversation record 1947-10-18
(4) Stalin, Foundations of
Leninism
(5) Lenin, Reply to P.
Kievsky
(6) Lenin: To AG Shlyapnikov
(7) Lenin, Lessons of the 1916
Easter Rebellion in Ireland
(8) Lenin: The Discussion On
Self-Determination Summed Up
.jpg)
