Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory? 1- The Battlefield of Ideology
1- The Battlefield of Ideology - Ideological Warfare and the 5th Column
"The
dialectical method... holds that the process of development from the lower to
the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a
disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a
'struggle' of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these
contradictions." Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism
This section is a summarized
application of the prior article 'From Ideological Struggle to Ideological
Warfare.' Here, we focus specifically on the 'Kafkatrap' mechanism as it
applies to China.
1.1- The Stalin Quote: A
Case Study in Dialectical Reading
The task of examining whether
China is imperialist according to Lenin's scientific definition cannot begin
with the accusation itself. It must begin with the method of reading—specifically,
a dialectical reading that understands phenomena not
in isolation, but in their historical and material context. A powerful
illustration of this method is found in Stalin's analysis of
ideological struggle within the proletarian party.
“Naturally,” said Stalin, “with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every sharpening of the struggle and intensification of difficulties, the differences in the views, customs and sentiments of the various strata of the proletariat must inevitably make themselves felt in the shape of definite disagreements within the party, and the pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably accentuate these disagreements by providing them with an outlet in the form of a struggle within the proletarian party.” (Stalin, Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the ECCI)
Stalin's observation is not an
expression of paranoia but a materialist fact: a socialist state surrounded
by hostile capitalism cannot be hermetically sealed from bourgeois ideology.
The 'pressure of the bourgeoisie' will inevitably find expression within the
party itself. This is the objective basis for ideological struggle, and the
objective condition that capitalist states exploit through ideological warfare. Aside
from the revisionists, so-called anti-revisionist cherry pick Stalin’s
statement divorced from its entire context and from the Leninist context.
Stalin said;
“You speak of
Sinified (Chinese) socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature.
There is no Russian, English, French, German, Italian socialism, as much as
there is no Chinese socialism. There is only one Marxist-Leninist
socialism.”
No one really spends time reading
the entire paragraph and the continuation of his statement. Stalin continues
the sentence;
“It is another thing that in the building of socialism it is necessary to take into consideration the specific features of a particular country. Socialism is a science, necessarily having, like all science, certain general laws, and one just needs to ignore them and the building of socialism is destined to failure.”
Stalin did not leave this
principle abstract. In his article "Comment on Current Affairs: On
China"—written precisely to refute the Trotskyites who were demanding that
the Chinese revolution follow a rigid, preordained model—Stalin explained the
first tactical principle of Leninism:
"The
principle of the necessity of taking into account the national peculiarities
and national characteristics of each country while working out the guiding
instructions of the Communist International for the working class movement of
that country."
"Notwithstanding
the ideological growth of our Party, unfortunately there is still in our Party
a certain type of 'leaders' who sincerely believe that it is possible to direct
the revolution in China, so to speak, by telegraph on the basis of the known
and universally recognized general principles of the Communist International
without taking into consideration the national peculiarities of Chinese
economy, Chinese political regime, Chinese culture, Chinese customs and
traditions. These 'leaders' differ from the real leaders precisely in that they
always have in their pockets two or three ready-made formulae that are
'suitable' for all countries and 'obligatory' in all conditions. For them there
is no question of taking into account the national character and national
peculiarities of each country... Our oppositionists belong precisely to this
type of these miserable leaders."
Stalin's warning is prophetic for
our own time. The modern critics of China—who denounce 'socialism with Chinese
characteristics' as a deviation while applying abstract formulae to a country
they have never studied in concrete detail—are the direct heirs of these
'miserable leaders.' They believe they can judge the Chinese revolution 'by
telegraph,' without understanding the conditions of a semi-feudal,
semi-colonial nation of over half a billion people (at the time of revolution)
that had been carved up by foreign powers for a century.
Stalin concluded this warning
with a strategic imperative that most of his modern critics conveniently
ignore:
"In order
to smash these powerful enemies it is necessary to have a flexible and
well-considered policy of the proletariat, skill to take advantage of every
crack in the enemy camp, skill in finding allies."
This is not a call to abandon
socialism; it is a call to win by understanding the concrete terrain of
struggle. If one ignores this, Stalin warned, "the building of socialism
is destined to failure."
Stalin, after outlining the “general
laws of building socialism,” states;
“These, in
short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring
that we relate to them as such. If you understand this, everything with
the building of socialism in China will be fine.” Stalin, a
meeting with a Chinese Communist Party delegation in 1949
Stalin, after outlining the “general laws of building socialism,” states;
(I will come back to this in a later section in order to minimize redundancy.)
As it is very clear, unless one
is subjective, Stalin is not denying building socialism in China based
on the conditions and character of China. This kind of eclectic approach is
nothing but biting into and making a habit of the revisionist and
bourgeois liberal tactics in the era of “ideological warfare,” in
which bourgeois states and institutions consciously carry them out.
1.2- From ideological struggle
to ideological warfare
"Ideological
struggle is a struggle for the minds of the masses." Mao, On the
Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
Stalin's era marked a critical
historical transformation. The internal "ideological struggle"—the
debates between different Marxist tendencies over theory and tactics—was
increasingly supplemented and, in many ways, overshadowed by a new phenomenon: "ideological
warfare." This was not a mere semantic shift but a change
in the very nature of the conflict.
"The
primary scope of ideological struggle prior to Stalin’s time was
local, national, and theoretical, with a constant, ongoing process of education
and debate. During Stalin’s period, internal 'ideological struggle'
inevitably transformed the ideological struggle into a worldwide 'ideological
warfare' by the external capitalist states. The presence of socialism made
'ideological warfare' campaigns more relevant for capitalist states." Erdogan,
From Ideological struggle to ideological warfare historical evolution
The existence of the USSR meant
that the ideological contest was no longer just about winning
arguments within workers' movements. It became a direct,
state-sponsored conflict between two global systems. The capitalists,
who own the means of production, also own the "means of mental
production"—media, education, culture—and they deployed these as
weapons of war.
The struggle against socialism
and socialist ideology gradually became an organized project by
external capitalist forces with their internal agents aiming at its destruction
and/or revision in a way that is acceptable to the capitalists. Ideological
struggle within the working class movements domestically transformed
into ideological warfare against capitalist ideology internationally, a warfare
between the progressive and reactionary world. The core idea in this warfare is
the control of Information as a weapon to defeat the enemy.
It's crucial to recognize that internal
ideological struggles are often not purely spontaneous phenomena
among intellectuals or parties, but frequently influenced or directed by
external manipulations. Capitalists, with their immense power and control
over the means of mental production, use sophisticated tools for misinformation
like "fake news", psychological operations, framing tactics, and
exploiting perceived weaknesses within any system against its interests.
The use of dialectical
method helps in identifying these foreign roots while also critically
examining whether certain internal features are indeed
temporary transitional phenomena or have become ossified structures hindering
socialist development and thus fulfilling their own historical materialist
criteria for decay. However, this is related to an internal
affair of a given country. Erdogan, From Ideological
struggle to ideological warfare historical evolution
1.3- Identical accusations of
5th column during Stalin Era repeated now.
“The truth is
always concrete." Lenin, The State and Revolution
This historical evolution is not
an artifact of the past. The tactics developed during Stalin's time are being
repeated today, skillfully concealed and amplified by vastly more
sophisticated means of mental production. The accusations of
"totalitarianism," "bureaucratic tyranny," and
"imperialist ambitions" that were once leveled against the
USSR are now systematically directed at China.
"The practice, in fact, is
no different than the era of Stalin’s Soviets and the Cold War era but is being
carried out in a skillfully concealed manner with years of experience
and through the available means of mental production controlled by the
capitalists. Studying and comparing the narratives used during the
Stalin era and the current era, we can easily see that the same
tactics are being used against the socialist countries, countries with socialist
tendencies, and anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggles within
countries." Erdogan, From Ideological struggle to ideological
warfare historical evolution
This is not a coincidence. It
is a repeatable pattern of ideological siege. The external narrative of
"5th column" activity is a direct product of the
"ideological warfare" waged by capitalist states. Its
purpose is to discredit the socialist system, sow division
within its ranks, and create internal pressure that serves external goals.
The purpose of the bourgeoisie
and their 5th column outlets and their tactics are not
different, but skillfully disguised.
1.4- What lied and still lies
behind all the accusations are anti-Leninist theories; “socialism
cannot be built in one country”, “anti-imperialist struggles and wars are a
thing of the past”. And confirming the bourgeois ideological argument
that only under capitalist power can capitalist development be
successful. If the socialist country is developed “then it is
capitalist”, “if the socialist country is not developed” then
it is because “socialism is not capable of it. The specific
accusations of "imperialism" against China are not isolated smears.
They are rooted in a deeper theoretical assault: the revival of
anti-Leninist theories that were supposedly settled decades ago.
These two bourgeois
theories, if accepted, would disarm the socialist
movement completely. If socialism cannot be built in one country, then the
existence of China, a socialist state that has survived
and developed for over seven decades, is a theoretical impossibility that
must be explained away. If anti-imperialist struggles are obsolete, then
any resistance to US/NATO hegemony is by definition illegitimate or
retrograde.
Stalin 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." Stalin, The
Foundations of Leninism)
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. Stalin, The
Foundations of Leninism)
It is a straightforward stand; under
the conditions of imperialist oppression and aggression, the struggle
and war of any country has an anti-imperialist character, and
thus, a progressive one regardless of its class
essence, regardless of its programs or existence of a democratic
basis.
This stand cannot be distorted by
sophistry and demagogy regardless of how the petty-bourgeois sophists and
philistines try to do so.
The skillful tactic they acquired
and have been using is a manipulative communication trick.
1.5- The Bourgeois
Kafkatrap (circular argument): Confirming the Bourgeois
Ideological Argument
"The
bourgeoisie is not interested in the truth... they need myths, legends, and
distortions." Lenin, various works
This brings us to the central
ideological trap, a perfect example of what can be called a "bourgeois
Kafkatrap", and if you deny it, your denial is used as proof that you are
guilty. The accusers construct a closed system of logic from
which the socialist country cannot escape. Confirming the bourgeois ideological
argument that only under capitalist power can capitalist development be
successful.
If China were poor and
underdeveloped, the accusation would be: "See, socialism does not
work." Now that China has lifted hundreds of millions out of
poverty and achieved rapid technological and economic growth, the
accusation flips: "See, it must be capitalist, and therefore
imperialist."
This dual-bind is the hallmark
of bourgeois ideology. It cannot conceive development without
exploitation because exploitation is the only historical experience of
capitalism. It cannot imagine a power that rises to global
significance without seeking to dominate, because domination is the
only language of imperialism. Thus, the accusation against China is
not a scientific observation; it is a “confession” of the accuser's own
ideological framework.
Paraphrasing Lenin ,
"We must not confine ourselves to the 'old' truths, but must be able
to carry them further, apply them to the new conditions—that is, we must be
able to look at things from the standpoint of the latest situation. Revolutionary theory
must adapt to changing real-world conditions. Sticking blindly to old
ideas based on the old conditions without looking at new
facts will fail. Leaders must study the current situation to make the right
choices, because, as Marx put it, "theory becomes a material force when
it seizes the masses." Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
Right
