By Fredo Corvo and Aníbal
Since the eruption of the war in Ukraine after the Russian invasion, and even more so after Hamas attacked Israel and Israel’s bombing of the Gaza Strip, it has been obvious, even to a superficial TV viewer, that something is going on. Also, the Marxist revolutionary minorities who appeal to the international working class have given their analyses of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and the forgotten wars in Asia and Africa, with articles, statements, and some conferences.
Proletarian internationalism
The proletarian internationalism put forward by these groups comes down briefly to the following:
- All present wars result from the division of the world into capitalist spheres of influence. The large and the small states and aspiring states that participate directly or indirectly (by proxy) in these wars, including the less powerful ones, are imperialist. That is, they try to make the most of the capitalist redistribution of the world resulting from each war.
- The “defense of one’s people” and the “right of peoples to self-determination” are merely the slogans with which imperialisms call on the workers of their countries to slaughter each other for the interests of capital.
- The working class, anywhere, has no stake in this inter-imperialist war whose price it pays in human lives, injuries, war trauma, and increased exploitation and oppression. For the working class of all countries: the enemy is at home, (class) war to the (inter-imperialist) war, no class peace but the continuation of the workers’ struggle until the revolution, even if it leads to the defeat of the “own” country in the war (revolutionary defeatism), the transformation of the imperialist war into the proletarian world revolution.
The proletarian internationalism put forward by these groups comes down briefly to the following:
The proletarian internationalism of the Marxist minorities differs fundamentally from the overt or covert war participation of reformists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc., even though they also call themselves Marxists. Similar differences exist among anarchists who struggle against war and those who participate in it. This article further deals only with differences among Marxist proletarian internationalists because, as Marxists, we share with them at least a common language, and hopefully a common method, that of historical materialism.
Origins and method
A characteristic feature of Marxism is that it regards the principles of the labor movement, of which proletarian internationalism is the most important, not as eternal and in fixed formulations but as arising in the class struggle from the immediate and historical interests of the proletariat. As historical materialists, we apply proletarian internationalism in an ongoing analysis of changing class relations. In doing so, we simultaneously build critically on the positions of our predecessors in the League of Communists, the First, the Second, the Third International, and the Communist Lefts, who opposed the subordination of the Comintern to the foreign policy interests of Soviet Russia, especially the German-Dutch Communist Left. The result of this, our analyses of the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the reader can find two position papers ([1]), and in many polemical articles in which we present our differences with other proletarian internationalists ([2]). See also an essay by Corvo that reconstructs the position of the historic Dutch Communist Left ([3]).
Why polemics?
What is the significance of differences in the analysis of current wars? Why polemic? The Greek polemos means war. Shouldn’t revolutionaries join forces based on minimal agreement on basic positions, as formulated, for example, in the three points above? Yes and No.
Yes. Cooperation in joint activities is possible and necessary to:
- counter war propaganda with working-class views;
- promote the struggle against the harmful effects of war on the living conditions of the workers by constantly explaining the connection with war and emphasizing the prospects of struggle toward class autonomy;
- support workers, deserters, and communists who are victims of oppression and exclusion.
No. No cooperation without open discussion of:
- the analysis of the changing current situation;
- the historical differences between branches of the communist labor movement that may emerge in the current analysis.
In our view, this is also how a new International or International Party can emerge. Not from or around any of the existing organizations. In the last two years, we have seen several initiatives from publications referring to the Communist Left, ranging from joint statements, the attempt to form anti-war committees or even an international “conference.” All these initiatives were sectarian attempts to thwart each other, to evade discussion as referred to above, and at the same time, recruit uncritical followers for their sect ([4]).
Proletarian internationalism in a Leninist and/or Trotskyist environment
To our surprise, we discovered more openness for discussion in an environment that calls itself Leninist and/or Trotskyist, but that is very critical about the Bolshevik idea of national liberation still being favorable for proletarian struggle. In this environment, the changed position of Bordigist groups on the same subject is sometimes known and applied. Cooperation in joint activities with those groups in this environment is possible if they agree in word and deed with proletarian internationalism, formulated in three points at the beginning of this article. And we also want to discuss some actual and historical issues with them.
What is imperialism?
We define imperialism as the effort of bourgeois fractions to make the most of the capitalist redistribution of the world resulting from each present war. This definition has received the critique that we limit imperialism to a policy, which is part of the superstructure. Lenin would have considered imperialism from the point of view of the basis.
We will not answer this with an effort to construct or reconstruct a ‘Leninism,’ nor will we here go into ‘Leninist’ ideas of the relations between basis and superstructure.
Whatever the definition of imperialism, understanding the bourgeois policy we mentioned is vital for understanding the present situation because it leads to trade wars, inter-imperialist wars, and the formation of imperialist blocs. This policy of several capital groups from conflicting interests leads to tensions and inter-capitalist struggles within nations. It is solved by the dominance of certain factions over others and often compensation of the latter’s losses by a share in the profits of the war economy. We see the same phenomenon on a larger scale when imperialist blocs are formed with a block leader. In the 20th century, these policies led to two World Wars and a Cold War that was hot in wars by proxy, revealing the differences between these inter-imperialist wars and the national wars or national liberation war, or colonial wars that were fundamentally ways to bring pre-capitalist regions of the world within the capitalist spheres of influence.
From a comrade, we received the following: “Regarding national wars. With the collapse of the colonial system and the formation of nation-states, national wars not only lost any progressive significance they had before, but these wars themselves became impossible. The national question is today used by the imperialist powers.”
We agree that the national question is today used by the ‘imperialist’ powers (in Lenin’s sense, bigger powers). However, we add that the formation of new nations has always been the work of a bourgeoisie that uses the nation, its language, and its history to attach ‘its’ proletariat to its capitalist class goals. The change is that none of these new nations is independent from bigger powers. At best (or even for worse), its dependency changed to that from another big power, in most cases, another imperialist bloc. Many new nations have been formed since the beginning of the 20th century (see endnote. [A]). This was not progressive, meaning they extended the sphere of influence of capitalism as a whole. They just meant a re-division of the sphere of influence between bigger nations and imperialist blocs, in most cases by wars fought by poor peasants and proletarianized masses. Nor were these wars fulfilling the benefits that the proletariat (the living and most important of productive forces) would receive from them, according to the bourgeois left (and even some internationalists).
We will not comment here on the false ideas that the era of imperialism would mean a fundamental slowdown, or even standstill or regression in the development of dead productive forces (or technology) or of the economic development of capitalism (theories of ‘permanent crisis,’ ‘death crisis,’ or ‘crisis – world war – reconstruction – crisis …’).
When we analyze recent wars from the perspective of the proletariat, it is vital to question if, in the era of imperialism, national wars, national liberation, or bourgeois revolution are progressive in promoting the development of technical means of production or accommodating proletarian struggle.
What about the national question?
The comrade quoted before, continues:
“For Marx and Engels, the national question was part of the strategy of permanent revolution on which the strategy of 1848 and subsequent strategic schemes linking the various plans of the class were based; it was the basis for the destruction of order in the system of states.”
It is correct to see the link between what in 1848 were considered real national wars and the strategy of permanent revolution. However, the idea that the national question was the basis for disturbing the configuration of states and borders could come from a handbook in Marxism-Leninism, as exemplified in the following quote:
“For Lenin, the epoch of imperialism, on the one hand, left behind the program of 1848 for the great European powers, and on the other hand, placed the national question on the new basis of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the colonies, that is, in the cycle of imperialist development in new regions. Before the night of Stalinism descended, the October Storm sought first a connection with the revolution in Germany and then with the development of Asia.”
During WW1, Lenin – then a proletarian internationalist and advocate of revolutionary defeatism – refrained from applying his right of nations to Europe. The case of Serbia had shown clearly that the national question was just a pawn in the hands of bigger powers. What we miss in the quote above is that after October 1917, when Lenin applied his position on the national question to regions of the Tsarist Empire, from Finland to Ukraine, these new nations turned into enemies of the soviet republic. Russia became surrounded by an iron ring of small nations governed by counterrevolutionary regimes. In its external policy, the Bolshevik government needed allies and tried to find them in Turkey, Iran, China, and not Germany. In all the countries mentioned, the Bolshevik foreign policy, forced on their CPs by the ECCI, led to disastrous results for the proletariat, which was delivered to its national bourgeoisie, and for the communists, in many cases slaughtered by the nationalists they had to support.
In Germany, already during the March actions of the workers’ Red Army in the Ruhr region against the Kapp Putsch in 1920, Radek negotiated from his prison cell with German men of state and generals. The KPD leadership signed the Bielefeld Agreements, disarming the Red Army in the Ruhr region. They delivered thousands of the most combative and conscious workers to slaughter by the white troops (Freikorpse) and the official army. Very soon, this ‘National-Bolshevik’ policy became the official policy of the Comintern: Germany was considered a suppressed nation.
Let’s not forget to comment on what is put in the foreground in the quote above: “the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the colonies, that is, in the cycle of imperialist development in new regions.”
We have to admit that in the days of Lenin, it could seem that these ‘revolutions’ were ‘progressive’ in the sense mentioned above and that nationalist movements in Asia could support Russia. However, these anticolonial movements often did not oppose their colonizers but offered them their services, f.e, Gandhi – the great social pacifist – handed Gurka troops over to the UK for services in the trenches of WW1. Notably, after WW2, some of the former colonies stayed in the sphere of influence of their old colonizer. In contrast, others fell with ‘free trade’ in the American bloc or, with the help of Russian imperialism, became part of the Russian bloc.
In retrospect, it is clear that these ex-colonies, like the ex-protectorates, were not additions to spheres of influence controlled by world capital, but at best, they exchanged an existing capitalist influence for another capitalist sphere of influence. When we dispense with Bolshevik humbug, it is evident that as early as around 1920, their foreign (and their domestic) nationality politics were guided by the realities of the Russian state, which – based on unchanged capitalist relations of production – had reshaped itself around their positions in government. A position in government that Marx rejected in 1848 should the possibility arise. The proletarian party (in his sense of struggling working masses) would push forward the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 “from the opposition.”
However, the comrade we quoted believes with certain Bordigists that anticolonial struggles continued to be progressive national wars till the mid of 20th century:
“During the second half of the twentieth century, the problem of national revolution recedes from the horizon of revolutionary tactics and strategy, precisely with the exhaustion of the independence movement in all regions of the world.”
We wonder what he means by ‘exhaustion.’ Our impression is that the mentioned Bordigists, by the departure of the adherents of national liberation from their International Communist Party, lost their hope to be able to realize what, in fact, were Lenin’s wrong ideas.
We conclude that independence movements continue and new ones arise. The point is their imperialist policies continue, trying to gain most from the re-division of the world by wars, ‘national’ and others, and aligning and subjecting themselves to bigger imperialist powers, thus being part of the global inter-imperialist confrontations, and subjecting their population to these massacres, the proletariat in the front-line.
The position that in a remote past, f.e. from the mid-20th century, national liberation and national wars are out of the question may allow practical cooperation in the struggle against inter-imperialist wars. However, to prevent future disagreements caused by different definitions, criteria and analysis, we should have a serious discussion about this, as on another implication of Lenin’s theory of imperialism: considering the Kartell or Monopoly, plus his admiration of German war economics, to be the economic form of socialism, which led to the implementation of State capitalism and the eliminate the power of workers’ councils, ultimately the defense of the “degenerate workers’ state” in WW2 by most Trotskyists.
Fredo Corvo and Aníbal, 15-1-2024
Some historical texts
- L’Ouvrier Communiste, “Imperialism and the National Question” (1929)
- Paul Mattick, “Luxemburg versus Lenin” (1935)
- Internationalisme (GCF), “On the National and Colonial Question” (1945/1946)
- Anton Pannekoek, “Class Struggle and Nation” (1912)
- Herman Gorter, “Imperialism, the World War and Social Democracy” (1914)
- Anton Pannekoek, “The economic necessity of imperialism” (1916)
- Rosa Luxemburg, fragmentos sobre la guerra, la cuestión nacional y la revolución
Notes
[1] – War, exploitation, and capitalist domination: How and why confront them?
- The working class and the war Israel – Palestine
[2] The list is too long to present her. Please find our critical articles in the following listing: https://leftdis.wordpress.com/category/capitalism/imperialist-war-terror-terrorism/
[3] The inter-imperialist war in Ukraine – From Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Gorter, and Lenin to “Council-Communism”
[4] – Two calls for proletarian internationalism against the war in Ukraine – an unwelcome response
- On a travesty of an international conference
Endnote
[A] Countries that did not exist in 1914 and came to life after the First World War include:
Yugoslavia, taking Serbia and Montenegro (existing), adding to them territories of Austria-Hungary (Slovenia, Dalmatia, Bosnia of the Austrian Empire, Croatia of the Hungarian Kingdom) and of the Ottoman Empire (Macedonia).
Czechoslovakia, taking the provinces of Bohemia, Monrovia and part of Silesia from the Austrian Empire and Slovakia from the Hungarian Kingdom. Thus split from Austria-Hungary.
Poland, taking the Polish Tsarate (in personal union with the Russian Empire until 1915), adding territories of Prussia (Polish corridor), and parts of Austrian Galicia and Silesia.
Austria. What was left of the Austrian Empire within Austria-Hungary, after the territories ceded to Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ukraine and Czechoslovakia.
Hungary, what was left of the Hungarian kingdom within Austria-Hungary after the territories ceded to Yugoslavia, Romania, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia.
Lithuania, also split from the Russian Empire, more in Memel territory of Prussia.
Latvia, another republic of the former Russian Empire.
Estonia, ditto.
Finland, the Grand Duchy of Finland within the Russian Empire, converted into an independent Republic.
Soviet Union, of the many states into which the Russian Empire disintegrated, finally the Soviet Union was the one that prevailed.
Turkey. The change of regime (from sultanate to a republic) and the split of almost all non-Turkish territories give to suggest that the Republic of Turkey is a completely different entity from the Ottoman Empire.
Ireland, the Republic of Ireland was not properly created at the end of World War I and the fact that it was not split from one of the losing empires means that it is not normally counted but was recognized in 1920. Between 1917 and 1922 there are many other nations that appeared and were later absorbed, so if we consider the stabilization period, Ireland may well qualify.
Hijas. After the partition of the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire between the United Kingdom and France, several claims of Arab kingdoms such as Syria and Jordan were superceded to mandates or protectorates of the new European empires. The Hashemite kingdom of Hijah had a brief independence before being conquered by Riyad and his ruling house of Saudi Arabia.
Ukraine was created from part of Austria-Hungary and part of the Russian Empire but later absorbed as a constituent republic of the Soviet Union.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire is divided into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and part of Yugoslavia.
The German Empire loses territories to other countries.Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Poland.
The Soviet Union emerged from the Russian Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was reduced to Turkey, and the victorious countries divided the rest of the empire: France occupied Syria, Great Britain, Iraq, Serbia, Montenegro, and part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire form Yugoslavia, Iceland became independent from Denmark, and Ireland from Great Britain, but these events were not a consequence of the war.
“The map of Europe has gained 22 new countries over the past hundred years. In 1906 there were 24 states, today there are 46 (47 if we include Turkey).
100 years ago, many of today’s independent countries were within the borders of the Austro-Austrian Empire and Russian Empire.
Turkey also had territories in Europe. Under its power were what is now Albania and Macedonia.
England, for its part, controlled Ireland, Cyprus and Malta.
Finland was under the Russian flag. 50 years ago There are already there are 34 States: In 1956, Europe had 400 million inhabitants (we are now over 800 million) and 34 States.
Compared to 1906, new countries such as Albania were born.
Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Poland, the Faroe Islands (independent from Denmark since 1948), the Vatican City, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
In the period between 1940 and 2000, nearly 100 new states came into being. In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, there were about 60 countries and at the beginning of the 21st century there are almost 200 nation states.
X International Colloquium on Geocriticism: https://www.ub.edu/geocrit/-xcol/168.htm
When the United Nations was founded in 1945, some 750 million people, almost a third of the world’s population, lived in territories that depended on colonial powers. Today, 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories remain, and fewer than 2 million people live in them.
Since the creation of the United Nations, more than 80 former colonies have gained their independence. This includes the 11 Trust Territories, which have achieved self-determination through independence or free association with an independent State. The Special Committee continues to monitor the situation of the remaining 17 territories and works to facilitate the achievement of their self-determination.
https://www.un.org/es/global-issues/decolonization
2012. At the beginning of the 20th century, Europe consisted of 24 states; a century later there are 47 (48 with Turkey). Of these, 16 have emerged as new states over the past two and a half decades.
The evolution has been even more rapid in the last quarter century, following the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. In all, 16 new states have appeared in Europe since 1990: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Belarus, Macedonia, Slovenia, Moldova, Croatia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo. Although a somewhat reverse process, German reunification also put a new state on the map.
Looking around the world, 43 states have appeared on the world map since 1975. In addition to the 16 Europeans, there are four Africans, 13 Asians, six Americans, and four in Oceania. 43 of the 193 states that make up the list of the world’s independent countries are less than 35 years old. In other words, almost a quarter of the world’s states were born after 1975.
https://www.naiz.eus/es/info/noticia/20121024/europa-13-nuevos-paises-en-25-anos
Many colonies became independent from their countries after World War II. Atlas Historique
More: https://elordenmundial.com/mapas-y-graficos/cambios-fronteras-europeas-1914-2020/
Left wing communism 
Pingback: War in the Middle East. To entangle or disentangle oneself from Leninism? | Left wing communism
Pingback: Quale lotta contro la guerra? Differenze attuali e storiche con il leninismo / trotskismo | Left wing communism
Pingback: AWW und Communaut im Trotzkismus gefangen und ohne Ausweg? – Arbeiterstimmen
Pingback: AWW and Communaut caught in Trotskyism, with no way out? | Left wing communism
Pingback: With Lenin and Trotsky: For or Against war ? | Left wing communism
Pingback: Avec Lénine et Trotski : Pour ou contre la guerre ? | Left wing communism