On the anti-imperialist war of Iran: confusion on and conscious distortion of the theory.
I had posted numerous comments on the theory and its application to the current
US-Israel war against Iran. The demagogies of petty bourgeois philistines (narrow-minded
people) with “left” phrases necessitated
a brief article on the theory with statements from Lenin and Stalin that leaves
no room for an objective reader to confuse the subject.
There were a couple petty-bourgeois know-it-all “leftists” who had no idea on Marxism Leninism carried their argument to the stupid mechanical reasoning that “capitalism” comes first (one has to be anti-capitalist first) , “monopoly-capitalism” comes later (anti imperialist later). Through this mechanical reasoning they claimed that since Iran ruling class is capitalist we have to fight against them first even under the conditions of imperialist aggression against Iran. Let’s leave aside the fact that Marxist Leninists are not “against the capitalists” in a feudal structured country (the concept of bourgeois democratic revolution), we will see from Lenin and Stalin’s explanations that such arguments have no bearing in determining the attitude of Marxist Leninists under the conditions of imperialist aggression. As Lenin puts it eloquently, “ the philistine monster is not an individual, but a social phenomenon, conditioned, perhaps, by the deep-rooted prejudices of the bourgeois-philistine theory of law.” (2)
In a larger context, “Science
tells us that the victory of socialism depends upon the development of
capitalism, and whoever combats this development is combating socialism. That
is why the Socialist-Revolutionaries (the faction in Russia) are also called Socialist-Reactionaries.” (3)
Despite the decades-long
cultivation of “collective stupidity,”
almost all of the Marxist Leninist parties and organizations have taken
the correct stand on the issue. As expected, the nationalists and pro-US
petty bourgeois philistines, some due to being infected with “collective
stupidity,” others due to their subjectivity, have taken sides with the
imperialists. Interestingly, most of
them have tried to justify their reactionary stand with left jargon to appear
to be Marxist-Leninist. Reading through their comments exposes that they have
never read Lenin and Stalin on the subject. Yet they use “left phrases” that fit into their subjectivity.
These ignorant petty bourgeois,
based on commitment to their own ethnic subjectivity and aversion to
anti-imperialist, socialist struggles, come up with theories that have nothing
to do with Marxism-Leninism.
Maxim Gorky had once said that “Petty Bourgeois philistines would want to
live calmly and beautifully, without taking active participation in the
struggle; his favorite position is a peaceful life in the rear of the most
powerful army.” The commitment to the "peaceful life" and the
union with the "most powerful party" make philistinism the
support of the "establishment", the most powerful at that given
moment. Under the conditions of crisis,
as evidenced by historical experience, philistinism, as a rule, provides
support for reactionary forces.” (4)
Subjectivity of the philistines compels
them to resort to sophistries to support their subjective determination,
rather than examining all the concrete conditions of an event and its
development. They do this 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 US-NATO through pacifism, which effectively turns into active
support for the US-NATO by concealing concrete facts and reinterpreting
Marxism-Leninism with ignorant sophistry.
Lenin, in his critique of Junius
Pamphlet, stated, “only a sophist can disregard the difference between an
imperialist (war between great powers) and a national war (war of a small nation against an imperialist great power) 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…”
(5)
What philistines do is what Lenin
stated eloquently: “ In all times, the sophists have been in the habit of citing
instances that refer to situations that are dissimilar in principle.” (6)
There is a difference in
the stands taken by the Marxist-Leninists in the case of a civil war within
a country, and under the conditions of imperialist aggressive war
against the same or against any country, and the stand against an
imperialist war-a war between great powers. There isn’t one stand that fits
all. That is the “ petty-bourgeois eclecticism versus Marxism, sophistry versus
dialectics, philistine reformism versus proletarian revolution…”(7)
Lenin explains the sophistry
as “the method of clutching at the outward similarity of instances, without
considering the nexus between events” and suggests its replacement with
dialectics, which he defines as “the method of studying all the
concrete circumstances of an event and of its development”. (8 )
Meaning that not the doctrinaire
and pedantic assessments based on learned by rote and sloganized general
theories and application of ready-made schemes, but objective assessments set
the foundation for drawing correct practical conclusions. “Marxist dialectical method forbids the
employment of 'ready-made schemes' and abstract formulas, but demands the
thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its concreteness, basing its
conclusions only on such an analysis. The dialectical method demands,
first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always
in their interconnection with other things. “This sounds “obvious.”
Nevertheless, it is an “obvious” principle which is very often ignored and
is extremely important to remember…. since the very essence of metaphysics
is to think of things in an abstract way, isolated from their relations
with other things and from the concrete circumstances in which they exist.
(9)
Comparing the “continuation of
the politics” of combating feudalism and absolutism—the politics of the
bourgeoisie in its struggle for liberty—with the “continuation of the politics”
of a decrepit, i.e., imperialist, bourgeoisie, i.e., of a bourgeoisie which has
plundered the entire world, a reactionary bourgeoisie which, in alliance with
feudal landlords, attempts to crush the proletariat, means comparing chalk
and cheese. (10)
In case of a civil war or
uprising within a country, to determine a stand requires extensive data and
study to determine a stand. The stand
depends on the character of the sides within that country. For example, if
the civil war, the uprising party is a proxy of aggressive imperialism,
the stand is not to support that party.
If the uprising is in a feudal country against capitalism, in
most likely cases, it is supported. If
it is an uprising of a reactionary class, even in a monopoly-capitalist (imperialist
in its economic sense) country, it is not supported. In simple
words, the stand to be taken totally depends on an extensive study of
the sides and their class characteristics. That issue has to be studied
and analyzed on case by case basis. In general, unless it is waged by an imperialist
proxy, "civil war”, said 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." (18) " Civil war against the
bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle." (5)
In case of imperialist
aggression, however, the class characteristics of the country
attacked by imperialists are not a precondition. That is related to the
issue of aggressive and defensive wars.
For Marxist Leninists there isn't any confusion about the stand on the question of just and
unjust wars. “Bolsheviks clearly defined the two types of wars for that
purpose; 1) Just wars; wars that are not wars of conquests but wars of
liberation waged against foreign attacks, 2) Unjust wars; wars of
conquest waged to conquer and enslave foreign countries.” (17)
In a defensive war, the “character
“ of the defending side does not matter. For one, it would be the laboring
people and the poor peasantry who would be suffering and being murdered
in any war. Lenin explained that “before
feudalism, absolutism and alien oppression were overthrown, the development
of the proletarian struggle for Socialism was out of the question. When
speaking of the legitimacy of “defensive” war in relation to the wars of
such an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which
amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom.
By “defensive” war Socialists always meant a
“just” war in this sense . Only in this sense have Socialists regarded,
and now regard, wars “for the defence of the fatherland,” or “defensive”
wars, as legitimate, progressive, and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco
were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia, or China on
Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective
of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory
of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave
owning, predatory “great” powers. “ (11)
Does Lenin’s words leave any room
for conclusion? Let’s hear from Stalin what the fundamental reasoning behind this
approach ; "Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the
oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal
democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results,
as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism,
that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale."
Stalin further emphasized the
Leninist approach and stance in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding:
"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." (12)
In the same article, Stalin
provided a clear example not to leave any room for misunderstanding or
spinning the question;
“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. (12)
It is a straightforward stand;
under the conditions of imperialist oppression and aggression the struggle,
war of any country has anti-imperialist character, and thus, a progressive one regardless
of its class essence, regardless of it's programs or existence of a
democratic basis.
This stand cannot be distorted by sophistry
and demagogy regardless of how the petty-bourgeois sophist and philistines try
to do so.
Paraphrasing Lenin’s words on Imperialist
wars and applying to anti-imperialist wars; An anti-imperialist war does not
cease to be anti-imperialist when charlatans, chatterboxes, or
petty-bourgeois narrow-minded people throw out emotional slogans due to their
subjectivity and/or flat-out pro-imperialist
stands (as we are all witnessing the examples currently).
Although it is much more complex
and nuanced, there is another issue some sincere Leninists seem to be arguing
while they are acknowledging that this is an imperialist aggression and Iran’s
stand is anti-imperialist; the question of turning the war in Iran into a civil war
for the Kurdish “national self determination”.
First of all, the Leninist
general theory is related to turning the imperialist wars (wars between great
powers) in to revolutionary wars. It is true as Lenin stated, “It is the task of present-day democracy to “utilise”
conflicts”. However, Lenin followed his words with a “but”, this international utilisation must
be directed, not against individual national finance capital, but against
international finance capital.” (13)
This statement of Lenin is fully
aligned with his stand on anti-imperialist wars; not internal but external
enemy. As he criticize Kautsky deviating
from this stand would put the person on
the side of imperialists. " The proletariat fights for the revolutionary overthrow
of the imperialist bourgeoisie; the petty bourgeoisie fights for the
reformist “improvement” of imperialism, for adaptation to it, while
submitting to it. (14)
In Iran case it is crucial to
consider Leninist stand and pay attention to Stalin’s words and determine first
who the main enemy at this given time is.
“One of the fundamental qualities
of the Bolshevik.. and one of the basic elements of our revolutionary strategy
is our ability to understand who the main enemy is at any given moment and
to know how to focus all our strength against that enemy”. (15)
Let’s assume that the Kurdish
situation is an “exceptional” situation which no Marxist Leninist would reject
the possibility of it.
One has to analyse objectively
based on concrete information and respond to the question; “What is the
objective analysis of the objective and subjective conditions in Rojhilat (Eastern
Kurdistan) at this given moment for a revolution?
The realization and survival of a
revolution must always take into account the possible consequences, especially
the risk of transformation into an
imperialist tool in case of the imperialist victory, or its being crushed through massacre in case
of Iran’s victory.
The existence of subjective
conditions presumes the presence of a communist party as an organized minority that
will lead the masses. “What is this
organised minority?” asks Lenin, and responds; “ If this minority is really
class-conscious, if it is able to lead the masses, if it is able to reply
to every question that appears on the order of the day, then it is a party
in reality …If the minority is unable to lead the masses and
establish close links with them, then it is not a party, and is worthless in
general, even if it calls itself a party.” (16)
It is necessity to approach this
question objectively and realistically, not subjectively or with fantasy. As
Lenin said, one cannot gamble with the future of a people.
In my humble opinion, (I may well
be wrong), to speak about a “revolution” in Rojhilat under the conditions of
imperialist aggression, during the anti-imperialist war Iran is waging is not
only a juvenile fantasy but an adventurous gamble risking the Kurdish people in
the region. That is an idea floating around, defended and possibly will act
upon by some Kurdish Organisations affiliated with the genocidal Israel and US
imperialists, but not by Marxist Leninists.
As a conclusion, the war Iran is
waging against US-Israel is a just, progressive, and anti-imperialist defensive
war. No demagogies, bourgeois “politically-correct! approaches” like “we are
against both” centrist positions can change that fact. As Stalin put it we do not fight against all,
we choose our main enemy , focus and fight against that enemy at given time,
the fight against the other comes at a due time.
Erdogan A
March 6, 2026
Notes
(1) Lenin, The Proletarian
Revolution, and the Renegade Kautsky
(2) Lenin, The Question Of The Dictatorship
(3) Stalin, The Agrarian Question
(4) International Literature,
1938, Moscow-USSR
(5) Lenin, Junius Pamphlet
(6) Lenin, The Collapse of the
Second International
(7) Lenin, Vandervelde’s New Book
On The State
(8) Lenin, The Russian Brand of
Südekum
(9) Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare
(10) Lenin, The Collapse Of The
Second International
(11) Lenin, Socialism and War
(12) Stalin, The Foundations of
Leninism
(13) Lenin, Under a False Flag
(14) Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution, and the
Renegade Kautsky
(15) Stain, Report to seventh
congress of international.
(16) Lenin, Speech On The Role Of The Communist
Party
(17) Stalin, Theory, and tactics
of the Bolshevik Party
(18) Lenin, Military Program of
the Proletarian Revolution
.jpg)