Conclusion
The Central Question and Its
Significance
This study began with a
deceptively simple question: Is China an imperialist country by the
scientific definition of Lenin's theory of imperialism? The answer required
far more than a superficial comparison of economic indicators or a repetition
of learned-by-rote slogans. It demanded a comprehensive application of the
dialectical method—a method that, as Lenin insisted, "proceeds by
means of a thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its
concreteness." The question could not be answered through abstract
formulas; it required the full weight of Marxist-Leninist methodology:
dialectical materialism, concrete analysis of concrete conditions, scientific
definition, and proletarian internationalism.
The significance of this question extended far beyond academic debate. The accusation that China is imperialist has become a weapon in the ideological warfare waged by capitalist states against the socialist world. It is used to divide the anti-imperialist camp, to discredit the largest and most powerful socialist state, and to obscure the true nature of US-led imperialism. For Marxist-Leninists, therefore, the question is not merely theoretical—it is a question of class duty.
The Threefold Burden of Proof
The accuser must meet a threefold
burden of proof: (1) that China is a capitalist country, (2) that the
Communist Party of China constitutes a new "bourgeois" class
ruling in its own interest, and (3) that China meets each of the seven
conditions of Lenin's scientific definition of imperialism. This work
has demonstrated that the accusers fail at every stage.
The first requirement—proving China is capitalist—cannot be met because the defining feature of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. In China, the commanding heights of the economy remain under state ownership and control, and political power is held by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The second requirement—proving the CCP is a "new bourgeois class"—collapses under the weight of Marx's definition of class: a class is defined by its relationship to the means of production. Party leaders do not own the means of production; they administer them on behalf of the people. The third requirement—applying Lenin's seven conditions—fails because China does not meet the material conditions of imperialism: no finance capital dominance, no deindustrialization, no offensive militarization, no global military projection, no colonial subjugation.
The accusation, therefore, is
not a scientific observation. It is a product of ideological warfare,
rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Lenin's scientific work and a violation
of Marxist-Leninist norms of criticism.
The Methodological Foundation:
Dialectics vs. Sophistry
Throughout this work, we have
insisted on a distinction that is crucial for understanding the contemporary
battlefield: the distinction between ideological “struggle” and ideological
“warfare”. Ideological struggle is the internal process within working-class
movements—debates over theory, strategy, and tactics conducted among comrades
seeking revolutionary clarity. Ideological warfare is the external,
organized conflict between capitalist and socialist systems—a battle waged by
states and their institutions using propaganda, media manipulation, and
cultural influence to destroy socialist alternatives.
This confusion 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 distinction is the
first condition for unity.
The Scientific Definition of
Imperialism Reconstructed
The Economic Aspect: Necessary
but Insufficient
Lenin's definition of imperialism
in “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” was, as he himself noted,
limited to the economic aspect: "the pamphlet was written with an eye
to the tsarist censorship. Hence, I was not only forced to confine myself
strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of
facts." The economic essence of imperialism lies in:
1. The concentration of
production and capital developed to such a high stage that it has created
monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
2. The merging of bank capital
with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance
capital," of a financial oligarchy;
3. The export of capital
as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional
importance.
These economic features are essential but incomplete. As Lenin stated: "imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts—to which the above definition is limited." The economic definition alone cannot distinguish between monopoly capitalism and imperialism proper. A country may fit the economic definition—monopoly capital, capital export—without being imperialist in the scientific, combined sense.
The Political Aspect: The
Essential Complement
The political definition of an
imperialist state may be summarized as "the systematic militarization
of the economy, converting productive capacity into instruments of
subjugation, while financial/tech/trade systems are weaponized to
sustain global dominance." This political aspect is not an add-on but an
essential component of the scientific concept. As Lenin insisted:
"there can be no concrete historical analysis of war, unless it is based
on a thorough analysis of the nature of imperialism, both in its economic
and political aspects."
The political aspect of
imperialism manifests itself through:
1. “Militarization of the
Economy”: The conversion of productive capacity to war footing, with
military industry becoming the primary engine of economic growth;
2. “Offensive Military Posturing”:
Not merely defense of territory but projection of power to subjugate other
nations;
3. “Perpetual Conflict”: The need
for unending conflicts and wars to feed the military-industrial complex;
4. “Use of Force as Policy”: The
use of force—whether direct war, proxy war, or economic strangulation—as a
continuation of economic policy.
The scientific definition of imperialism is the dialectical unity of these economic and political aspects. A country cannot be properly designated "imperialist" unless it meets both sets of criteria.
The Historical Evolution of
Imperialist Wars
The character of wars changes
with the character of capitalism itself. During Marx and Engels' time, wars
were primarily bourgeois-democratic against feudalism and dynastic empires. The
bourgeoisie was historically progressive in dismantling feudalism, making anti-colonial
wars objectively progressive. Lenin's analysis during World War I showed that
capitalism had become reactionary: "Formerly progressive, capitalism has
become reactionary." The task of socialists was no longer to support one
bourgeois side against another but to utilize the conflict against all
international finance capital through revolutionary defeatism.
Stalin's analysis of World War
II demonstrated the necessity of distinguishing between aggressive and
non-aggressive imperialists. "A distinguishing feature of the new
crisis," he said, "is that it differs in many respects from the
preceding one, and, moreover, differs for the worse and not for the
better." The non-aggressive countries, combined, were stronger than the
fascist states, both economically and militarily. Yet they had rejected
collective security and taken up a position of "neutrality." Stalin's
policy was to "utilize" the contradictions between imperialist
powers for the interests of the proletariat—supporting the non-aggressive
imperialists against the aggressive ones.
This historical survey reveals
that the attitude of Marxist-Leninists to wars must be determined by
concrete analysis of concrete conditions. As Lenin said: "depending on
historical conditions, the relationship of classes and similar data, the
attitude towards war must be different at different times." There is no
ready-made schema that applies to all wars. The fundamental question is always:
Where do the interests of the proletariat lie?
The NEP Precedent: The Leninist
Tradition of Utilizing Capitalist Methods
What Was the NEP?
The New Economic Policy (NEP),
introduced by Lenin in 1921, replaced War Communism with a mixed economy. It
allowed limited private trade, small-scale private industry, and foreign
concessions, while the state retained control of large-scale industry, banking,
transport, and foreign trade. Lenin called this "state
capitalism" under proletarian control—a strategic retreat to rebuild the
productive forces devastated by civil war and foreign intervention.
Lenin's logic was clear:
"The Soviet government drove out the Russian landlords and capitalists,
and now it invites foreign capitalists—is this right? Yes, it is, because if
the workers' revolution in other countries is delayed, we will have to make
certain sacrifices, solely to rapidly—even immediately—improve the condition
of the workers and peasants."
The NEP was not a surrender to
capitalism but a calculated maneuver. As Bukharin explained: "Through
concessions, we allow individual foreign capitalists to make profits, but we
weaken world capital as a whole, because in our struggle against it, we strengthen
Russia by additionally acquiring technical equipment, and thus we change the
balance of forces." The bourgeoisie brought not capital but “the
ability to operate within market economic relations”. Production remained
in socialist hands, but market linkages fell into bourgeois hands. This was, as
Larin put it, "paying tuition fees."
China's Reform and Opening-up,
starting in 1978, operated on an identical theoretical logic: dismantling the
ultra-centralized Soviet-style wartime command economy, allowing
township-village enterprises, private firms, and massive foreign direct
investment, while keeping banking, energy, telecom, defense, and
infrastructure firmly under state/public ownership. In both cases, the
Party/State retained ultimate political control. The bourgeoisie is not allowed
to form an independent political party or take over the state apparatus.
Capital is strictly subordinated to political directives: industrial
policy, five-year plans, poverty alleviation, technological self-reliance.
The scale and duration differ:
the NEP lasted about seven years; China's EP has lasted over forty years and
integrated a colossal population into global capitalism. The NEP
operated in a largely isolated global system; China's reforms occurred during
the peak of neoliberal globalization. But the principle remains identical: the
political power of the proletarian state subordinates the economic power of
capital. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.
State Capitalism Under
Proletarian Control Is Not Imperialism
The data on "political
capital" and "private capital" proves that China's state
dominates capital, not the reverse. This is the inversion of
imperialist finance capital. The purpose of China's economic policy—domestic
welfare, resource security, and mutual development—proves its anti-imperialist
character.
Those who call China
"imperialist" confuse participation in the global market with
domination of the global market, in which the State regulates private capital, with imperialist finance capital and the investment for domestic welfare and
mutual benefit replaced with investment
for super-profits and exploitation.
This confusion is not a
scientific error; it is the result of ideological warfare.
Testing China Against the Seven
Conditions: The Scientific Verdict
Condition 1:
Monopolization of All Major Industries Under Finance Capital Dominance
China's state-owned enterprises
occupy 27 of the top 30 positions and account for over 60% of infrastructure
investment. State capital dominates strategic industries such as energy,
transportation, communications, and finance. However, this is a “state”
monopoly rather than a “private financial capital” monopoly. Decision-making
power belongs to the Party and state institutions, not private financial
oligarchs. This differs fundamentally from Lenin's description of "finance
capital rule" in terms of ownership and control.
“Verdict: Not met.” State
monopoly exists, but it is not a private financial capital monopoly.
Condition 2: Formation of
State Capitalism to Consolidate State Institutions
While Chinese SOEs pursue
profits, they also bear policy objectives. The government uses SOEs to
implement industrial policies, drive technological innovation, and execute
strategic development tasks. This model can be described as a "state-led
market economy." However, whether it constitutes "state
capitalism" depends on the definition. If "state capitalism"
means the state serves capital accumulation, then it does exhibit certain
features. But if it means the state itself has become the executive committee
of the bourgeoisie, that does not align with China's ownership structure.
Condition 3: Export of
Capital and Control of International Financial Institutions
China is indeed one of the
world's major capital exporters. ODI flow reached $192.2 billion USD in 2024,
with a global share of 11.9%, covering 190 countries and regions. However, regarding
control of international financial institutions, China's voting rights in
the IMF and the World Bank are far lower than those of the United States. The
AIIB and the New Development Bank, which China has led in establishing, are
supplementary arrangements and have not yet formed monopolistic control
over the international financial system.
“Verdict: Partially met (capital
export) / Not met (control of international finance).”
Condition 4:
Deindustrialization—Shifting Production for Cheap Labor
China's manufacturing share has
declined from its peak of 38.5% (1997) to 24.9% (2024). However, this remains
much higher than that of typically "deindustrialized" countries
like the US (approx. 11%) and the UK (approx. 9%). China has remained the
world's largest manufacturing nation for 15 consecutive years, and the
value-added of high-tech manufacturing grew by 8.9%. This indicates that China
has not experienced "deindustrialization" in the classic sense;
the decline in manufacturing share is a natural result of economic structural
evolution (the rising share of the service sector), not industrial hollowing-out.
Condition 5: Offensive,
Aggressive Militarization
China's military expenditure as a
share of GDP (1.27%–1.71%) is below the global average (1.8%) and far below
NATO's 2% target. The US spends 3.4% of GDP on its military. While China's
military spending has grown for 30 consecutive years, its share of GDP has
remained below 1.5% for a long period. In terms of the share of military
spending in GDP, China does not display the characteristics of a "war
economy."
“Verdict: Not met.” Military
spending as a percentage of GDP is below the global average and NATO
target.
Condition 6: Transition
from Producer to Consumer Country
China's manufacturing sector
accounts for 24.9% of GDP, and it remains the world's largest manufacturing
producer. China is also the world's largest importer of natural resources and
is highly dependent on resource imports. However, China has not transitioned
from a "producer" to a "consumer" country—it remains
the core production node of global supply chains. China's global leadership in
new energy (electric vehicles, batteries, solar power) further reinforces its
role as a producer.
“Verdict: Not met.” Remains the
world's largest producer.
Condition 7: Permanent
Military Export and Global Subjugation
China has only one logistics
support military base overseas (in Djibouti), and its function is
logistical replenishment, not combat deployment. Compared to the US's
approximately 800 overseas military bases and permanent stationing of hundreds
of thousands of troops, China's overseas military presence is negligible. UN
peacekeeping operations are international obligations within a multilateral
framework and are not "imperialist" military exports in an aggressive
sense.
“Verdict: Not met.” Only one
overseas logistics base.
China does have large-scale capital
exports and state monopolies, but it lacks the prerequisite of
"bourgeois control of the state" as well as the key
characteristics of offensive military expansion and
deindustrialization. Having tested China against the seven conditions as
they exist in present material reality, and finding them unmet, the
scientific case is closed.
“China is not imperialist by
Lenin's scientific definition.”
The Qualitative Question: Is China Socialist?
The Dictatorship of the
Proletariat
The defining feature of
socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat—the political power of the
working class. As Lenin stated: "The transition from capitalism to
Socialism will certainly create a great variety and abundance of political
forms, but their essence will inevitably be the same: the
dictatorship of the proletariat."
Stalin elaborated the
three aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat:
1. The utilization of the power
of the proletariat for the suppression of exploiters and the defense
of the country;
2. The detachment of the
toiling and exploited masses from the bourgeoisie and the consolidation of
the alliance of the proletariat with these masses;
3. The organization of
Socialism, for the abolition of classes, for the transition to a society
without classes.
In China, the dictatorship of the proletariat remains intact. The Communist Party is the vanguard of the working class. State-owned enterprises control the commanding heights of the economy. The state directs economic planning through five-year plans and industrial policies. The purpose of production is domestic welfare, not super-profits. A socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be imperialist by definition.
The Seven General Laws of
Building Socialism
Stalin summarized the general
laws of building socialism as:
1. The dictatorship of the
proletariat, the workers' and peasants' State;
2. Socialised property of the
main instruments and means of production;
3. Nationalisation of all
capitalist banks;
4. The scientific and planned
conduct of the national economy from a single centre;
5. Obligatory domination of
Marxist-Leninist ideology;
6. Creation of armed forces for
defense of the revolution;
7. Ruthless armed suppression of
counter-revolutionaries and foreign agents.
China meets all seven
criteria. The fact that it adapts these laws to its concrete conditions
does not negate their application—it is the very essence of Leninism. As Stalin
himself instructed: "in the building of socialism it is necessary to
take into consideration the specific features of a particular country."
The Four Pillars of Socialist
Practice
Through decades of study, I have
come to believe that there are four fundamental indications of the direction of
socialism in a country:
1. Free and compulsory education
as an investment in the future;
2. The provision of basic medical
insurance for all;
3. The guarantee of work as a
matter of state policy;
4. The provision of free or
affordable housing as a social right.
China has built the world's
largest basic medical insurance network covering over 1.3 billion people—approximately
95% of the population. Education is compulsory and tuition-free through nine
years. The government has lifted over 700 million people out of poverty
in recent decades, largely through employment creation. The "dual-track"
housing system ensures affordability. While China's approach of
"affordability" differs from the classical model of "totally
free" in smaller planned economies, this is an adaptation to
scale and global market integration, not a retreat from socialism.
Who Owns the Land?
Land ownership is a decisive
indicator of class character. In China, urban land is owned by the state;
rural land is owned by the village collective. This "dual-track"
model is identical to North Korea's constitutional structure: state ownership
of urban/industrial land, cooperative ownership of rural agricultural land. In
the USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, and Albania, the state is the sole legal owner.
The diversity of forms reflects the diversity of concrete conditions, not
a departure from socialism.
The Inescapable Conclusion
The evidence is conclusive: China
remains a socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. A
socialist state cannot be imperialist. Imperialism is the highest stage of “capitalism”—and
China is not capitalist. Those who call China imperialist are not applying
Lenin; they are abandoning him for bourgeois propaganda.
The Mechanism of the
Accusation: A Confession of Ideology
The Bourgeois Kafkatrap
The accusation against China is a
perfect example of what can be called a "bourgeois Kafkatrap"—a
closed system of logic from which the socialist country cannot escape.
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.
The accusation against China
is not a scientific observation; it is a confession. It reveals that the
accuser cannot conceive of a power that does not seek to dominate, because
domination is the only language their own economic system speaks. They project
the logic of imperialism onto a system that has structurally superseded it.
The Revival of Anti-Leninist
Theories
The specific accusations of
"imperialism" against China are rooted in a deeper theoretical
assault: the revival of anti-Leninist theories that were supposedly settled
decades ago.
"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.
These two bourgeois theories, if
accepted, would disarm the socialist movement completely. They are the
theoretical foundation upon which the accusation of "Chinese
imperialism" is built. To accept the accusation is to accept the entire
anti-Leninist framework.
The Role of Ideological
Warfare
The struggle against socialism
and socialist ideology has become an organized project by external
capitalist forces with their internal agents, aiming at its destruction
and/or revision in a way acceptable to the capitalists. The capitalists, who
own the means of production, also own the "means of mental
production"-media, education, culture-and they deploy these as weapons
of war.
As we demonstrated in Chapter 1,
the CIA's funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the cultivation
of "anti-Stalinist leftists," and the promotion of
"left" anti-communism created a permanent Fifth Column within
the socialist movement. Trotsky's accusations of "bureaucratic
deformation" and "betrayal of the revolution" were
repurposed by intelligence agencies, given institutional support, and
transformed into the foundation of a "left" anti-communism
that persists to this day.
The accusation against China is a
direct continuation of this tradition. It is not a product of scientific
research but of organized propaganda. The "left" critics of China
are, objectively, serving imperialist propaganda—whether consciously or not.
The Violation of Marxist Norms
of Criticism
The accusation of "Chinese
imperialism" violates every norm of Marxist-Leninist criticism.
Marxist criticism is scientific, based on objective analysis of concrete conditions. It is constructive, which removes error to build proletarian truth. It is comradely conducted
through proper channels, with respect for sovereignty. It is focused on one's
“own” bourgeoisie, not on fellow socialists abroad.
What the accusers'
"criticism" is that it is subjective, based on bourgeois
sources, not concrete knowledge. It is destructive, designed to
discredit, not to build. It is directed outward, focusing on other
countries' communist parties while ignoring their own national struggles.
As Lunacharsky stated:
"Marxist criticism is a science because it opposes subjectivism...
Criticism, by its nature, cannot be only negative... The Marxist critic
'removes' the wrong conception in order to form one that meets the interests of
the proletariat." The condemnation of China as "imperialist"
does not meet these criteria. It is not scientific, objective, or
constructive. It is a weapon of ideological warfare.
The Strategic Implications of the accusation
For the Anti-Imperialist Movement
China is the largest, most
powerful socialist state on earth. Its survival and development under seventy-five
years of US-led encirclement is one of the greatest achievements of the
international working class in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. To
weaken it with reckless accusations is to weaken the entire anti-imperialist
camp.
The task of Marxist-Leninists is
not to police the purity of socialist states from a comfortable distance.
It is to defend them against imperialist attack, to study their concrete
conditions, to learn from their successes and failures, and to fight for
socialism in their own countries. That is the only path consistent with
proletarian internationalism.
For Marxist-Leninist Theory
Lenin's theory of imperialism
remains scientifically valid-but it must be applied dialectically. The “form”
of imperialist conflict has changed (proxy wars, economic warfare, cyber
warfare), but the “essence” remains. War is still inevitable as long as
capitalism exists. Imperialism is still the highest stage of capitalism.
Finance capital still drives global competition.
Those who pronounce Lenin's
theory "outdated" or misapply it by calling a socialist state
"imperialist" are abandoning Marxism. They are not defenders
of Leninism; they are inheritors of the Kautskyite-Bernsteinist tradition
that Lenin criticized over a century ago. They hide behind "ultra-left"
slogans while serving the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
For the Ideological Struggle
The distinction between ideological
struggle and ideological warfare is not academic—it is the key to effective
resistance. The enemy's method is to divide, confuse, and turn socialists
against each other. Recognizing ideological warfare is the first condition
for victory.
Marxist-Leninists must recognize that ideological criticism of fellow socialist parties is only legitimate when it is constructive, comradely, and conducted through appropriate channels. Public denunciation, particularly from abroad, violates Marxist norms and serves capitalist interests.
Genuine internationalism
requires focusing on one's own national struggle while supporting others
materially and through solidarity-not through pontification. Lenin's
injunction remains definitive: "He is an internationalist who combats
his own bourgeoisie."
Final Synthesis: Who Truly
Defies Lenin?
The Inescapable Conclusion
The answer to the question of whether
China is imperialist, reached through dialectical materialism, scientific
definition, and empirical testing, is a resounding “NO”. China is not an
imperialist country by Lenin's scientific definition.
China is a socialist state under
the dictatorship of the proletariat. It does not meet any of Lenin's seven
conditions for a scientific concept of imperialism. The accusation against it
is a product of ideological warfare, rooted in a violation of Marxist-Leninist
norms of criticism and a fundamental misunderstanding of Lenin's scientific
work.
The Accusers' Confession
Those who call China imperialist
are not applying Lenin; they are abandoning him for bourgeois propaganda. Their
accusation is a confession of their own ideology. It reveals that they
cannot conceive of a world beyond exploitation, because exploitation is the
foundation of their own worldview.
Correct Action
Marxist-Leninists must:
1. “Expose the bourgeois nature
of the accusation”: The accusation that China is imperialist is not a
scientific observation; it is a weapon of ideological warfare;
2. “Return to the principles
of genuine internationalism”: Combating “our own” bourgeoisie, not
slandering socialist states;
3. “Defend socialist states
against imperialist attack”: While offering fraternal, constructive
criticism where it is due;
4.“Apply the dialectical method”:
Concrete analysis of concrete conditions, not abstract formulas or learned-by-rote
slogans.
"The revolution is not a
sterile and abstract process," Lenin taught, "it is a living and
concrete process." Those who apply Leninist theory mechanically,
without understanding the concrete conditions to which it must be applied, are
not Leninists at all. They are dogmatists who have abandoned the dialectical
method.
Final Words
This book has attempted to
demonstrate that the question of whether China is imperialist cannot be
answered through slogans, gossip, or abstract formulas. It requires the
full weight of Marxist-Leninist method: dialectical materialism, concrete
analysis, scientific definition, and proletarian internationalism.
The answer, reached through this
method, is clear: China is not imperialist. The accusation is a weapon of
ideological warfare, not a scientific conclusion. Those who wield it are not
defending Leninism—they are abandoning it.
The task before us is not to
police the purity of socialist states from a comfortable distance. It is to
defend them against imperialist attack, to study their concrete conditions, to
learn from their successes and failures, and to fight for socialism in our own
countries. That is the only path consistent with proletarian internationalism.
That is the path Lenin taught, and that is the path we must follow.
“"He is an internationalist
who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own
social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites."“ Lenin
"The correct Leninist course
demands deeds, not words." Enver
Hoxha
Final Note;
The dialectical rule is that nothing
remains static; the only constant is change, for everything moves either
backward or forward. The conflict between opposing forces is the driving force
behind all change, and nothing can exist in complete isolation from its
surroundings. Bearing this in mind, Marxist-Leninists base their concrete
assessments not on assumptions about the future, but on the concrete conditions
and circumstances at hand. This means that change is inevitable for China,
but we cannot predict whether it will be backward or forward; changes in
fundamental principles and practices in China may be the only indicator
of its direction. Depending on the changing conditions, there may be changes in
the "four pillars of the socialist state"; backward or
forward. If the changes are negative during a period of economic boom, this can
be considered an indication of a step backward. Dialectically, the boom
itself is not an external condition, but an expression of the existing
relations of production. Therefore, a negative change during an economic
boom is particularly significant because prosperity does not make a system
immune to decline; on the contrary, it reveals the political character of the
explosion depending on whether it strengthens the dictatorship of the
proletariat and its institutional bodies, or whether it begins to play a
restraining or opposing role to this dictatorship. The economic indicator
is never the ultimate arbiter; it is the class content of growth.
However, these are not the fundamental
principles a deviation from which is considered a backtrack, or in ML terms,
“restoration”. But “Principles are not
an aim, a programme, a tactic or a theory. Tactics and theory are not
principles… The principles of communism consist in the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and in the use of state coercion in the
transition period.” Lenin, Speech In Defence Of The Tactics Of The Communist
International
If the principle is the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the use of state coercion in the transition
period, then the fundamental question for any concrete assessment is not
"has the policy changed?" but "whose class interest does
the state coercively enforce, and in whose interest is the coercion suspended
or redirected?" That is the immutable question underlying the changing
conditions. If the coercive apparatus of the state -its legal system, its
security organs, its economic planning mechanisms- begins to operate
increasingly in the interest of a new propertied class or a self-reproducing
bureaucratic elite, then that is not a "tactical shift"; it is a
qualitative change in the principle itself, even the old terminology is
retained.
We cannot predict; we can only
analyze the concrete conditions at hand, and the most concrete condition of
all is the real relationship between the state's coercive power and the
working class. The direction is not written in the stars, nor in the GDP
curve, but in the daily material reality of who gives the orders, who
obeys, and who benefits from them.
Erdogan A
August 14, 2026
