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 start with, in order to grasp the nuances of the messages given in this book, one has to have a Leninist theoretical foundation. 

We all have acquired preconceived perspectives at early ages when we were not theoretically mature enough and influenced by those whom 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 organisations 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 the “criticism”  of their revolutionary personalities, but of their analysis and perspectives on this given 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 the life of them, 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. To hold onto 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 judgement. For the quotes given, check to see the entire article of Lenin or Stalin, whatever the case may be, to determine whether the quote is cherry-picked or within the context of the entire article.

My main purpose in writing this book is to set the foundation for the Marxist-Leninist to go back to reading Lenin and Stalin (because their work is resourceful),  and shake the laziness off. 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 the objective realities and objective truth, and they expose the manipulative, learned-by-rote or false narratives and “gossip” based “evidence” fabricated by the capitalists, especially by the US aggressive imperialists and their left-disguised lackeys disseminated for the purpose of propaganda.

Marxist-Leninists recognise and rely on objective sources independent of subjectivity to seek and determine objective reality, which alone is capable of giving us objective truth. General knowledge consists mainly of relative truths. It is a step on the way to mastering the 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. Application of dialectics, however, requires thorough analysis, not application of ready-made schemas fitting all the conditions and situations in all the countries regardless of their past and present. Objective assessments do not rely on “assumptions” about the far future, but the existing concrete condition and situation.

“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 and concrete conditions and objective truth. Revisionists and bourgeois Liberal tendency defend their theoretical revisionism with the aid of 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 the crucial one, I believe, 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, pseudo-leftist groups formed, organized or supported by the intelligence agencies of the capitalists.  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. Due to their control and domination of information, data, and knowledge, it is unavoidable that their perspectives under left disguise will penetrate into the perspectives of the left. The historical example is the attack on Lenin through Stalin. They are very experienced, and they have the means and methods. If one, for opportunistic reasons, cannot attack Lenin directly, focuses on Stalin; if one cannot attack Stalin, then one chooses to attack him by attacking 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 the people to use them skillfully. That’s why the success of their work on revising the Leninist theories and their propaganda against the socialist, socialist tendency, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist countries and forces reflects itself 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 have taken up the concept of imperialism in this book based on Lenin’s definition of the scientific concept of imperialism in order 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” written by them spelled 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. Especially after reading numerous such arguments on the subject and not coming across even one convincing theoretical and/or any concrete evidence on their “wild” claims, I decided to study the subject three years ago. I read every Soviet document, including the recently declassified ones, Stalin’s correspondence, Bolshevik CC and Congress transcripts, and Chinese revolutionary history, especially 1927  and on. 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 in reference to  “Is China Imperialist “ is not written in a week but a product of extensive search and study, first and foremost to convince myself if it is imperialist or not. It is impossible to convince others unless one himself is convinced based on not gossip and propaganda but the concrete facts, and theoretical supportive assessments of 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, the analysis and stand should be determined not based on 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 the cherry-picked, divorced from the entire context, 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 is due to either a 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 programme, a tactic, or a theory “ said Lenin, “Tactics and theory are not principles…” (Lenin, Speech In Defence 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 was warning against such practice of applying general principles and rules as a prescription for the determination of the 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 from the practical aspect, an assessment can only be equally correct if the assessment is based on objective and validated data and the assessment considers the particular and general with the application of dialectics of Marxism. That is to say that  China’s history and concrete conditions in particular and the dialectic connections with the world in general, recognizing the fact of existence and 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 is the study of concrete conditions and situations that prevent subjective, learned-by-rote, sloganized theories, arbitrary conclusions that have no bearing on the interests of laboring people and of their struggle, neither in particular nor 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 in so many theoretical grounds. 

The question is whether there is enough theoretical and practical concrete evidence to label China as an imperialist state. All my research and study prove both theoretically and practically otherwise. As I will show below, the “cherry-picked” quote from Stalin which is widely used does not tell the entire perspective of Stalin or Lenin. Using the term “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” in a mocking way actually is a reflection of how theoretically ignorant the mocker himself is, how subjective he is, and how easily he embraced the capitalist, revisionist propaganda. Determination of a stand based on ready-made conclusions and formulas fitting the subjectivity acquired subjectively forces one to sophistry in order to support the subjective determination rather than studying all the concrete circumstances of an event and of its development.

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