Scientific Concept of Leninist Imperialism and "Chinese Imperialism" - Preface and Introduction
Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory?
Preface
To grasp the nuances of the messages in this book, one needs a Leninist theoretical foundation.
We all acquire preconceived perspectives at an early age, when we are not yet theoretically mature and are influenced by those we trust and believe (for good reasons in most cases). These indirectly acquired perspectives are very difficult to change. I know it because I was one of the first ones among them who spoke of “China’s imperialism” in the context of not allowing the “pro-China group” to the planned mass protest in an organizing committee meeting in which the local representatives of almost all of the parties and organizations were present ( I am not sure of the date, but it was the early 1970s). It was not because I had “theoretical knowledge”, but an acquired perspective from the older comrades.
I carried that acquired perspective till I got mature not only in age but in a theoretical sense, and started doubting the correctness of that “conclusion”. I haven’t acted on my “doubt” when I get really old for the reasons: 1) I was not sure either way because I did not have sufficient theoretical accumulated data on the subject, and verifiable data on China, 2) I was working on the declassified Soviet Archives and combing data from them related to Lenin and Stalin; speeches, correspondence, conversations, CC secret meeting transcripts, etc.
I started collecting theoretical data on China
three years or so ago in order to study the subject myself and make up my own
mind. It was the articles on the subject
published in a Turkish magazine by a dozen writers —which, like all such
accusations, relied on bourgeois sources and abstract formulas—that triggered me to
focus on the subject and write an article. I do
know of, and have respect for, some of the writers since the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
have come to know of the rest in later years. So this is not “criticism” of their revolutionary personalities, but of their analysis and perspectives on this subject. Unlike the Western know-it-all petty
bourgeois so-called “Marxist-Leninists” who dismiss every revolutionary (even
Dimitrov and Molotov) due to some “differences” in their assessments on a few
subjects, and label them personally as revisionist, I have learned to have an
overall look at their lives and struggles, and I call them comrades
as long as they remain on the revolutionary path. But we must also warn that
the practical effect of their arguments—serving imperialist propaganda—is
objectively against the interests of the working class. This is not a personal
attack; it is a scientific assessment of the consequences of their position. I
always keep Lenin’s assessment of Rosa Luxemburg in mind;
Eagles may at
times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.” Rosa
Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of the independence of
Poland; she was mistaken in 1903 in her appraisal of Menshevism; she
was mistaken on the theory of the accumulation of capital; she was
mistaken in July 1914, when, together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky
and others, she advocated unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks;
she was mistaken in what she wrote in prison in 1918 (she corrected most of
these mistakes at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 after she was
released). But in spite of her mistakes, she was—and remains for us—an
eagle. “ Lenin, Notes of a
Publicist
If you are a sincere
Marxist-Leninist, leave your preconceived perspective while reading this book. Holding on to them will prevent objective reading and make you 'look for
statements' to dismiss the overall argument.
Don’t take my words at face value; make your own judgment. For the quotes given,
check the entire article by Lenin or Stalin, whatever the case may be, to determine whether the quote is cherry-picked or within the context of the full text.
My main purpose in writing this
book is to lay the foundation for the Marxist-Leninist to go back to reading Lenin and Stalin (because their work is resourceful) and shake off the laziness. A Marxist-Leninist
does not know “everything”; that is why they constantly study Marxism-Leninism
from its main sources and research to
deepen their knowledge, which is a responsibility and an unending task.
Introduction
Marxist-Leninists do not rely on bourgeois sources for their
search for truth. They seek and speak of objective realities and objective truth, and they expose the manipulative, learned-by-rote, or false narratives and “gossip”- based “evidence” fabricated by capitalists, especially US imperialists and their left-disguised lackeys, and disseminated for propaganda. At the end of 1971, two days before 1972, Enver Hodja said: " The difficulty is that we do not really know the internal situation of China; we know it only at the propaganda level. But what can we do?” Now we live in an entirely new era with mind-boggling technology and a web of information, at least to be informed and get some objective facts.
Marxist-Leninists recognize and
rely on objective sources independent of subjectivity to seek and determine objective
reality, which alone can give us objective truth. General knowledge
consists mainly of relative truths. It is a step toward mastering absolute truth in general and objective truth in any given particular. As Lenin
points out, " absolute truths are historically conditional, but the
existence of this truth is unconditional...as in all other areas of science, one
should reason dialectically, that is, not assume our knowledge is
ready and unchanged, but analyze how knowledge comes from ignorance, how
incomplete, inaccurate knowledge becomes more complete and more accurate."
Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-criticism.
Marxism-Leninism without the
application of dialectics of Marxism turns it into a soulless theory learned by rote, abstract slogans and statements repeated on any given issue. Applying dialectics, however, requires thorough analysis, not ready-made schemas that fit all conditions and situations in all countries, regardless of their past and present. Objective assessments do
not rely on “assumptions” about the far future, but on existing concrete conditions and situations.
“Marx’s method
consists, first of all, in taking due account of the objective content
of a historical process at a given moment, in definite and concrete
conditions.” (Lenin: Under a False Flag)
“Genuine dialectics,” Lenin
wrote, "proceeds by means of a thorough, detailed analysis of a
process in all its concreteness. The fundamental thesis of dialectics
is: there is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is always
concrete.” (Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back)
“We are revolutionary
Marxist-Leninists,” said Kuusinen, “and we always start out from a correct
scientific analysis of the economic and political situation and of the
tendencies of its development. We repudiate all subjectivism and its
arbitrariness in appraising the objective situation. ” Kuusinen, From 13th
Plenum of ECCI
Politically, sophistry is
a calculated technique of magnifying general points and assumptions and obscuring or minimizing particular points, concrete conditions, and objective
truth. Revisionists and the bourgeois Liberal tendency defend their theoretical revisionism with clever sophistry. Sophistry is the substitution of
eclecticism for dialectics. “ Those theories made sophistry of Marxism and
falsified it (sometimes unconsciously), said Lenin, “ appeared
to be Marxist and, by referring to Marx”, tried to deny the
application of Marx’s theory. (Lenin, Apropos of an
Anniversary")
The revolutionary struggle is waged through the inseparable unity of economic(democratic), political (socialist), and ideological struggle. The longest-lasting and, I believe, the crucial one is the ideological struggle.
The theories -generalized assessments of Lenin and Stalin are the guides to practice to follow and stand to be taken all through the struggle. Any fundamental deviation from those guiding theories will weaken the struggle not only in particular but in general. That’s why all through its history the ideology and the theories of Leninism have been overtly and covertly subjected to attacks from the capitalists and their lackeys. It's easier for any socialist leaning person to figure out the reactionaries, but it is very difficult to single out those concealed ones.
Similarly, so often, it is difficult to distinguish the
correct assessment from the wrong ones made by sincere socialists. Because the
ideological struggle within the working-class movement has been transformed into ideological warfare worldwide, with the participation of powerful states and state institutions, media, academia, think tank groups, and pseudo-leftist groups formed, organized, or supported by capitalist intelligence agencies. This warfare is conducted
through a 'fifth column' of individuals and organizations that present
themselves as Marxist-Leninists while serving the interests of imperialism.
Some are conscious agents; others are unconscious tools of bourgeois ideology. Because they control and dominate information, data, and knowledge, their perspectives, under left disguise, will inevitably penetrate the left's perspectives. The historical example is the attack on Lenin through Stalin. They are highly experienced and have the means and methods. If one, for opportunistic
reasons, cannot attack Lenin directly, one focuses on Stalin; if one cannot attack Stalin, one attacks Dimitrov or Molotov.
It is an ideological warfare for
the capitalists waged by the US imperialists and their NATO allies; to divide,
fracture and create animosity even conflict within the socialist parties and
organizations, to revise the socialist ideology in a way that will not present
any danger to their existence; “socialism is impossible in one country,”
and “anti-imperialist wars are a
thing of the past” make up the foundation of the theories in the service of
capitalists. Even if they don’t blatantly defend that, throw ultra-left
slogans, what they defend in their practical assessments, their approach and
stands end up in either one of those conclusions. It is not a coincidence that a
know-it-all pseudo socialist, in a condescending way, argues while sipping his
whisky; “Cuba is not socialist”, “ North
Korea is a kingdom (or they invent some new terminology just for it).
As I have noted above, they have
a century-old experience and lots of “experts”: some paid, others looking for recognition by them for various reasons. It is not an easy war against those
who not only possess the means and methods but also the people to use them
skillfully. That’s why the success of their work in revising Leninist theories and their propaganda against socialist, socialist-tendency, anti-imperialist, and anti-fascist countries and forces is reflected in the assessments and arguments of sincere socialist parties, organizations, and
individuals.
They distort the meaning of so
many fundamental socialist terms in a way that will make their arguments
convincing: state, bureaucracy, socialism, fascism, imperialism and various
others. I take up the concept of imperialism in this book based on Lenin’s scientific definition to clear up the confusion and correct the approach to the constantly repeated rote “conditions” for the
definition. It is not my “opinion”; it is
how Lenin and Stalin define it in its totality. We cannot look for a
“prescription” they wrote that spells out exactly what we want to see,
especially when they already explain it in various articles numerous times.
The second and most important subject is the question of “China” being an
imperialist country, which I was claiming in the early 1970s not because I had
done research on that but just because my comrades I trusted were calling it
so.
All the arguments I have read in
reference to “Chinese imperialism” rely
on bourgeois gossip and have no definite theoretical support but are cherry-picked. Abstract theoretical reasoning,
in most cases which contradicts their claim. Lenin had stated that:
“Abstract
theoretical reasoning may lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has
arrived—in a somewhat different fashion but also by abandoning Marxism.”
Lenin, preface to Nikolai Bukharin's pamphlet, Imperialism and World
Economy.
As I read Lenin and especially
Stalin multiple times, I started doubting the correctness of that conclusion. After reading numerous such arguments on the subject and not finding a single convincing theoretical or concrete piece of evidence for their
“wild” claims, I decided to study the subject three years ago. I read every
Soviet document, including recently declassified ones, Stalin’s correspondence, Bolshevik CC and Congress transcripts, and Chinese revolutionary history, especially from 1927 onward. I even ventured to go to China and
study on the ground; unfortunately, my visa application was denied. However, I
had accumulated enough supporting data and theoretical articles and
documents from Stalin; I had some Chinese documents (mostly historical- CCP)
translated. I had long and multiple discussions with old-time communists from China
and Vietnam. So the chapter on “Is China Imperialist” is not written in a week, but is the product of extensive research and study, first and foremost to convince myself whether it is imperialist or not. It is impossible to convince others unless one is convinced first, based not on gossip and propaganda but on concrete facts and theoretical support from Stalin, since most use his words to claim it is.
If not all, most claimers I read
through have the attitude that they already know everything and they don’t
have to research and study; we know how
Lenin called them;
“ If a Communist
took it into his head to boast about his communism because of the ready-made
conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great deal of serious and
hard work, without understanding the facts which he must examine critically,
he would be a very deplorable Communist indeed.” Lenin, The Tasks of
the Youth Leagues
Such superficiality would be
decidedly fatal. If I know that I know little, I shall strive to learn more;
but if a man says that he is a Communist and that he needs to know nothing
thoroughly, he will never be anything like a Communist.
Application of general theories
in an abstract, learned-by-rote way in
most cases will not represent the objective truth. Thus, analysis and position should be determined not by abstracts assumed to be the
truth.
“Marxism requires of us a strictly
exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relation of classes and of
the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation.” (Lenin,
Letters on Tactics)
Marxists do not proceed
from cherry-picked, context-free, generalized theories to
assessment of a given situation. That approach renders subjectivity and
arbitrariness. Marxist-Leninists proceed from the assessment of a concrete
situation to the application of theories.” Marx”, says Lenin, "... speaks
only of the concrete situation; Plekhanov draws a general conclusion without
at all considering the question in its concreteness.” (Lenin,
Plekhanov's Reference to History)
Memorizing and sloganizing some
theories and applying them as a prescription that fits all stems from either petty-bourgeois laziness or the confusion and assumption that theories
are principles. Theories are simply the generalization of the
conclusion of a given specific analysis for a given subject under a given
condition and situation. “Principles are not an aim, a
program, a tactic, or a theory “ said Lenin, “Tactics and theory are
not principles…” (Lenin, Speech In Defense Of The Tactics Of The
Communist International)
The fundamental reason for
deducing the wrong approach and drawing the wrong conclusion from the
right theories is that the "theories" remain
abstract and thus prevent formulating any concrete conclusions for
the specific conditions and situation, in a way that can be understood by the
masses.
Lenin warned against applying general principles and rules as a prescription for determining tactics and stands to be taken. “Of
course, in politics, in which sometimes extremely complicated—national and
international—relationships … have to be dealt with...” said Lenin, but “it would
be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general rule... that would serve in all
cases. One must have the brains to analyze the situation in
each separate case.” Lenin, Left-wing Communism)
To give a proper assessment of
the significance of any phenomenon, we must consider it in conjunction with
the whole. Part is dialectically connected to the whole and subordinated
to the interests of the whole.
“Not the
doctrinaire and pedantic assessments based on learned by rote and sloganized
general theories and application of ready-made schemas, but objective
assessments sets 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. We have already
considered it and some examples of its application in discussing metaphysics,
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.” (Maurice Cornforth, Materialism, and the Dialectical Method)
Theoretically or practically, an assessment can be equally correct only if it is based on objective, validated data and considers the particular and the general through the dialectics of Marxism. That is, China’s history and concrete conditions in particular, and its dialectical connections with the world in general, recognizing the ongoing “ideological warfare” between capitalism and socialism, in addition to ongoing economic and political warfare.
“Abstract theoretical reasoning,” said Lenin, “may lead to the conclusion at which Kautsky has arrived—in a somewhat different fashion but also by abandoning Marxism..” (Lenin, Preface to N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism, and the World Economy)
Marxist-Leninist objective
assessment studies concrete conditions and situations, not subjective, learned-by-rote, sloganized theories or arbitrary conclusions that bear no relation to the interests of laboring people and their struggle, either in particular or in general.
This book is not written to
determine if China is socialist or not. I had to touch base on that issue
to show how weak and baseless the argument of “Chinese Imperialism” is on so many theoretical grounds.
The question is whether there is enough theoretical and practical concrete evidence to label China as an imperialist state. The answer is no. That is the reason arguers rely on cherry-picked quotes and gossip as evidence. As you will see, it is impossible to prove that China is imperialist based on theories and gossip. However, an argument that China's government is social-chauvinist is more plausible, both theoretically and practically. Social chauvinism, as history has proven, is the only way for the restoration of capitalism other than a soft or hard counter-revolution. What does that mean? It means that China's transformation into social-imperialism is possible. As Lenin and Stalin advised, we deal with that when it happens, because we deal only with the current, objective reality. And again, as Lenin and Stalin stated;
“Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilize the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.” (Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.)
“We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer “(Lenin, 8th Party Congress)
One has to read carefully without
prejudice and make his/her own deductions. Because if the
argument is wrong, in practical reality the claimants are serving the
interests of the imperialists in the name of socialism and in the name of
being anti-imperialist. If one is wrong, he/she is not serving socialist
internationalism but global capitalism.
That is why it is a serious subject not to take lightly if one claims
to be a sincere socialist and not to fall into the propaganda bait and, by
way of which, side with the imperialists.
“In order to achieve victory, in order to build and consolidate socialism …The second task is more difficult than the first, for it cannot possibly be fulfilled by single acts of heroic fervor; it requires the most prolonged, most persistent and most difficult mass heroism in prosaic, everyday work. “ Lenin, A Great Beginning
This book will test China against
Lenin's seven conditions for imperialism. As we will demonstrate, China fails
every condition when properly understood. This is not because we are
'defending' China—it is because the evidence is conclusive.
Chapter 1. From Ideological struggle to ideological warfare: historical evolution
