Imperialist Globalization and Seeking of Revolutionary Road
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

 
Other articles
 

The writing task on imperialist globalization in the context of the development of Marxist theory took us to “history”. In the first half of 1995, when the Unity Revolution became a tangible reality in the days of fighting under fire, its notion had not yet been arisen. But the Marxist-Leninist Communists at that time had not scrutinized the relationship of the revolutionary movement with the theory in a critical and revolutionary way when they had already developed their own position. In the fall of 1995, the first issue of Proletarian Direction (Proleter Doğrultu, theoretical organ) appeared, defining the relationship between revolutionary communists and theory as follows:

"Communists must continue to defend 'dogmatically' the main principles of Marxism-Leninism. There must be no doubt or restraint. However, they must not be dogmatic in their defense of the main principles when it comes to the theoretical work-up and the theoretical construction with regard to the given conditions and the world. What is to be done on this basis is the masterful application of the Marxist method and dialectical materialism, creative, evolving, and responsive to the needs of political struggles."(PD, Issue 1, p.5)

This foresight and definition guides the communist vanguard in its relationship with theory, as well as its theoretical evolution. The most important tasks of the last twenty years of the class struggle have raised theoretical questions that have found an echo in the intellectual work of the communist vanguard. These include various topics ranging from the tasks related to Kurdish question to similar questions and issues of struggle and organization forms, the women's liberation struggle, internationalism, the question of building fronts, the regional revolution and the organizational structure of the party, etc.  With the perspective to tie the theoretical work to the needs of the political struggle, of course, the "imperialist globalization" is discussed within the theoretical work. It is problematized to draw revolutionary conclusions from it. In summary, the history of the communist vanguard has determined its extraordinary position on the issue of imperialist globalization.

From a theoretically perspective, the new stage of monopoly capital today exists under the conditions of imperialist globalization, so there is an existential need for the structures of the laboring left movement, whether revolutionary or reformist, or oscillating between reformism and revolutionariness, to analyze the reality of imperialist globalization that they want to destroy or change, to derive their theory, and to draw conclusions for program and strategy, because of the reality "without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movement".

Within the laboring left movement, imperialism has already been talked much about. But still you will hardly witness any significant discussions and polemics about the "imperialist globalization", which we call "imperialism of our time." It would also be surprising to find complete and comprehensive analyzes of imperialist globalization. Structures that place the fight against imperialism and the "question" of independence at the center of their strategy, speak more than anyone else about the fight against imperialism, but because they do not interpret the reality of imperialist globalization and close their eyes to the level and phase of the imperialist globalization of monopoly capitalism, they are always at risk of slipping into nationalism.

It can not be said that the entire laboring left movement is indifferent to the reality of imperialist globalization. In very different parts of the laboring left movement, some peculiarities of imperialist globalization are expressed separately and in an isolated way, and even emphasized in some situations. For example, many structures and circles accept the reality that world monopolies are the foundation of today's imperialism. There are also structures in the laboring left movement, which differentiate that the production is organized internationally and that the labor force has socialized on an international level. There are different circles which see that nowadays finance capital is superior to industrial capital, just as speculative capital movement has become a characteristic feature of finance capital, or that all the contradictions of capitalist modes of production have become internationalized and become global problems etc.

Yes, you can see trees, the qualities characterizing imperialist globalization can be named as individual facts, but nevertheless it is not understood that these facts, as a whole, make up imperialist globalization. They are structural components of it, and in any case do not exist outside of this whole as isolated and separate, this whole is the stage of the imperialist globalization of monopoly capitalism.

The situation can be described more or less this way, so trees are seen! But how about the forest, why can it not be seen as the trees are standing as forming components? Why is the forest not mentioned? How can it be more difficult to see the forest than the trees? We will return to this, but first explain the position of the Marxist-Leninist Communists about the "forest". One of the important additions to the program of the MLKP after its 5th Congress defines imperialist globalization as follows:

"Today is a time characterized by the total control in production, trade and capital export, of the international monopolies and world monopolies, which are the biggest ones of those, over the integrated world market; a time in which the production process itself has also globalized, which speculative capital has gained a significant position within the total capital movement, which international monopolies and imperialist states enter into a violent competition with each other and struggle for redivision of the world on the basis of this competition, which neocolonialism was transformed into a heavier form of yoke, financial-economic colonialism. Today, with all these distinctive features, world capitalism has reached another stage of imperialism: the stage of imperialist globalization." (from the central organ of the MLKP, Voice of the Party, 83rd issue)

This definition includes the specificities of the stage of imperialist globalization of monopoly capitalism, which is why it offers us something holistic. Because the "forest", that is, the level of the new quality, has become clear, it has become possible to understand the trees and to explain their nature accordingly. In her 5th congress, the MLKP has ended the state of "not seeing the forest" for herself and, in respect to reality, made imperialist globalization a question of revolutionary theory, of program and of strategy, proving a great theoretical energy. On the other hand, we have to say that this is still a belated revolutionary push. Those who follow the development of the Marxist-Leninist Communists know that the reality of imperialist globalization is not new to their agenda. Even the term "imperialist globalization" has been used much earlier, and moreover, they have unintentionally lost a great period of time due to heavy state attacks to the party after officially taking this issue into their own agenda until the time the analysis finally came to an end. It is also noteworthy that the decisions of the 5th Congress on imperialist globalization, as noted in the Voice of the Party (Partinin Sesi, PS), are the result of collective discussions.

The answers of the questions above lead us to the analysis of the problem of the relationship that builds the laboring left movement with theory and the state of theoretical tasks. One of the most outstanding qualities of revolutionary history between 1965-1970 and 1975- 1980 is the vibrant, dynamic climate in both periods, during which countless analyzes, written or other forms of discussions and direct mass meetings on theoretical, political (program, strategy and tactics) and organizational issues that have led to polemics. That was a "revolutionary atmosphere". No matter what other weaknesses the laboring left movement had at that time in its approach to theory, it was the expression of the intellectual and practical seeking for a revolutionary road of the subjects and subject candidates born into this ongoing historical time (Here we add in parenthesis immediately that "in this case, the opposite is true." Disinterest in the theory, namely, reflects the loss of the revolutionary claim, and above all, an erosion of the 'revolutionary pathfinder' and the 'leadership claim').

In relation to the fundamental questions of the revolution, the present state of the laboring left movement is quite different from the examples above. Analyzes and polemics about the fundamental questions and the efforts of revolutionary theory are barely developed and very pale. This state is not a reality that can easily be overlooked and neglected by the laboring left movement. We are certainly facing with a very significant problem here.

Why is the theoretical dynamic and the seeking of a revolutionary road of the laboring left movement so weak? In the parenthesis the first answer was given. The answer lies in the reality of the "loss of revolutionary commitment". Let's take a closer look at the situation of the laboring left movement.

In the turn of 1989-90, the moment had arrived when the defeat of 20th-century's socialism was established with its previous capitalist restoration, dissolution and collapse. On the other hand, new order of monopoly capitalism, transition to the stage of imperialist globalization, has matured. The vital issues of revolutionary programs and class struggles have been redrawn worldwide. Above all, these gigantic developments have provoked shocks that erode the Marxist, socialist or other ideological claiming structures (TDKP -Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey-, TKEP -Communist Laborers' Party of Turkey-, etc.). In the wake of the events of 1989/90, claims were replaced in an ideological state of shock, resulting in ideological confusion, destruction and liquidation. As a result, large sections of the laboring left movement have repeated their previous positions, leading to a new "conservatism and dogmatism". In this transitional period, -that is, the early period in which ideological decay was decisive, but also only in the early days- this new "conservatism and dogmatism" played a moral and political role, partially, a revolutionary role. But in hindsight, they have led to or caused disinterest in the basic dialectical-materialistic explanation of our world today and in the conclusions for program and strategy. By insisting on the previous theory, program and strategy or not being able to develop theory, program and strategy in such a way that they could provide answers to the new economic, social and political conditions, one was theoretically stuck, just as one was politically pinned and repeated.

"Why you can not see the forest" is answered by the truth that 'the theory has become a blindfold based on theoretical blindness'. Deeper historical reasons can be found in the structuring of the international communist movement of the second half of the 20th century and in the examination of the relationship to them.

Almost all of the structures that make up the laboring left movement express their goal of socialism and revolution. They see themselves as responsible for the social classes they want to represent. The structures that more or less follow their goals cannot restrain themselves, or be afraid to analyze the reality of imperialist globalization, to create their theory, and to take the responsibility to change on program and strategy.

After the fascist military coup of September 12th, 1980, in the late 80's and early 90's, there was partly a liveliness and new search in the laboring left movement for analysis, discussions, etc. basic problems. But there has been developed no analysis and discussion dynamics and search, no revolutionary atmosphere that was similar or comparable to the periods between '65-'70 and '75-'80. Immediately after the events of 1989 (the dissolution and collapse of the USSR, the abolition of the Warsaw Pact, etc.), the discussions which were heated more within the revolutionary wing of the laboring left movement and in which everyone expressed their opinion within the framework of previously established ideological positions, some have shown a talent for development, but they were not productive and evolving and not long termed anyway. The struggle for socialism has passed into a new age, but the structures with a socialist claim have failed to understand or interpret that a new historical period has come. In other words, they have resisted to stay in the past, with little or no effort at all, in understanding and interpreting the new period, and demonstrated rather little dynamic.

Every revolutionary party is itself undoubtedly a search for a revolutionary path. This essential, existential reality manifests itself in its theoretical and practical efforts. As the mental-intellectual effort and production, and the physical-concrete action weaken in this seeking of revolutionary road, the “claims”, “ideals” and “commitment” to their own goals also weaken. This reality means that the mentioned parties are getting to become less and less "significant" and "necessary", and history is questioning their right to exist. It is inevitable that those structures  having little ability to adapt to the new historical period and restructure, have to deal with matter of life and death. Likewise, it has become more apparent that some parts of the laboring left movement have suffered a process of dying peculiar to the political currents in the last 10-15 years. But on the other hand, also tendencies and structures that had a great talent to understand the new historical conditions have come to the fore. The formation of an opportunism corresponding to the structure of this period (two wings of the current TKP  -Communist Party of Turkey- comes to mind!) can also be included.

 

How is the revolutionary theory developing?

 

Since the foundation of Marxist theory by Marx and Engels to the present day, the basic driving force of the development of revolutionary theory, has been the effort of the parties of all countries, which are entitled to socialism and revolution (currents, groups and organizations included), the will to answer the revolutionary questions of the economic and social conditions of their present time as well as the class struggle in a conceptual and practical way. For this, we must also count the efforts of Marxist academicians.

Lenin has often and for various reasons approached to the question of the renewal of Marxist theory and Marxist movement. He emphasized the revolutionary feature of Marxist doctrine:

“Doctrine—said Engels, referring to himself and his famous friend—is not a dogma, but a guide to action. This classical statement stresses with remarkable force and expressiveness that aspect of Marxism which is very often lost sight of. And by losing sight of it, we turn Marxism into something one-sided, distorted and lifeless; we deprive it of its life blood; we undermine its basic theoretical foundations—dialectics, the doctrine of historical development, all-embracing and full of contradictions; we undermine its connection with the definite practical tasks of the epoch, which may change with every new turn of history.” (Vladimir I. Lenin, Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism)

Structures which speak and act in the name of Marxism, socialism, and revolution are, in a way, breaking off the relationship of Marxism with the practical questions of our epoch by ignoring the realities of "imperialist globalization" which define the economical, social and political situation of our time. Or they stay behind the "time". Speaking a lot about "imperialism", but disregarding and ignoring the imperialist globalization, is nothing more than the mummification of Marxism anyway. It is not surprising that this also takes away the revolutionary content of the anti-imperialist struggle, and causes degeneration in the form of nationalism and so on.

The question here is to know and understand how to adapt Marxist theory to changing economic and social conditions, this is how the theory develops anyway. Lenin does not hold back when it comes to fighting firmly with the comrades who did not understand this. This example is more than instructive for us: under the new conditions after the February Revolution of 1917, which had overthrown the Tsarist order, Lenin criticized the "Old Bolsheviks" in a perfect way and defined the task of Marxist theory perfectly:

“For the present, it is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the true facts of and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only embracing life in all its complexity.”

“Theory, my friend, is gray, but green is the eternal tree of life.” (Vladimir I. Lenin, Letters on tactics)

Well, "Which revolution are you talking about?" can be asked. Of course, here we are discussing the state of the laboring left movement in regard of the theoretical tasks and production of the theory. But this discussion also has a "connection with the revolution". The criticism of the Marxist-Leninist Communists against the laboring left movement on the issue of Kurdish national revolution in the 1990's still holds its actuality as it describes a "revolutionariness which does not understand the revolution". The revolutionariness which does not understand the revolution sustains itself today by updating  through the rejection of the Rojava revolution. While some parts of the laboring left movement may find anti-imperialism when they look at the despotic collaborative Assad regime, but they somehow cannot see the Rojava revolution!

As students of Lenin, we need to hold imperialist globalization into account, the "living reality, definite and concrete facts".

Let's move on. Later in the same work by Lenin, we find the following lines:

"Marxism demands of us the most accurate, objectively verifiable analysis of the interrelationship of classes and the specific features of each historical moment. We Bolsheviks have always endeavored to live up to this demand, which is entirely indispensable from the point of view of any scientific justification of politics. 'Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to action.'

Marx and Engels emphasized, rightfully mocking memorizing and simply repeating "formulas" that are at best suited to just outlining the general tasks that must be done the concrete economic and political situation in every particular section of the historical process will inevitably be modified." (Vladimir I. Lenin: Letters on Tactics)

It is evident, that there is a lack of interest in the theory and a lack of self-confidence in certain theoretical questions. Yes, on the one hand, there is a liberal, liquidating case, spinning away from Marxism and a reality of escaping from it; but on the other hand, the tendency of freezing the theory, in a way, theoretical conservatism and cutting the connections of Marxism from daily questions, mummifying it, still strongly continue to exist. This situation of the laboring left movement is not only evident in avoiding the analysis of imperialist globalization and being unable to bring this as an issue of revolutionary theory, program and strategy. From the Kurdish national question to the formation of fronts, from the women's liberation struggle to the organizational structure of the Marxist party, from internationalism to regional revolution included, we can see the same reality in these and in other questions too. But we must emphasize the importance of the special peculiarity of the holistic and periodical scope and the dominant feature of the imperialist globalization question which reshaped the face of earth.

Throughout the transitional period, which was at the same time the beginning of a new historical period in the struggle for socialism, the Kurdish national democratic struggle against colonialism, the national revolutionary uprising has always been the main and decisive problem of the class struggle. Political freedom is not only a vital need and demand of the Kurdish nation, but also of the working class and all the oppressed. But especially after the fascist military coup on September 12th, 1980, there was a break in the consciousness of the working class and the terror of disorganization, following the restoration of the experience of socialism in the 20th century. The heavy ideological burden of defeat based on dissolution and decay and many other causes have ultimately led to the fact that the working class couldn’t lead the struggle for political freedoms and couldn’t play it’s role as the leading and vanguard class. It can be said that since the ‘Spring-movement' of 1989 and the resistance of the miners in Zonguldak, the Kurdish national uprising has been taking place at the center of the political freedom struggle. Because the primary theme of the struggle between oppressors and the oppressed has been, above all, the "Kurdish national question” and the “Kurdish national liberation struggle", this issue must have been the first theoretical agenda of discussion for all the structures, which claim socialism and revolution.* There is no doubt about it, however the opposite seems to be a very clear truth.

We must emphasize that, in fact, there is a strikingly curious situation within various structures of the laboring left in regard of their theoretical activity in the context of national question. When it comes to the Kurdish national question and the national democratic movement, the TKP is first to come to mind as it holds a special position within the laboring left movement. The patented TKP, which has split theatrically, loves to speak in the mood as if they are the only one who understands Marxism in Turkey. Their relationship to the Kurdish national democratic movement and the Kurdish national question is based on telling and explaining that Lenin was wrong about the "self-determination right of nations" and self-determination is not really important, it can be neglected etc. Here, the function of producing "new theory" means the realization of a social-chauvinist line and legitimizing this line through Marxist and socialist perspective. Of course, when the function of the "Marxist theory" regarding the Kurdish national question becomes running away from national issues and the Kurdish national liberation struggle, the aim of political strategy and tactics becomes undertaking the duty of keeping the working class away from the national democratic movement and creating disinterest towards it. The effort to "develop" theory is realized here as the revision of the theory. According to them, it is inappropriate to speak of the liberation struggle of the oppressed nation. Because that would mean to rise to the bait of the imperialists. The oppressed Kurdish nation must wait to be freed by socialism. Otherwise they would become a play-ball of the imperialists, etc. This social-chauvinistic alienation of the Kurdish nation's struggle against Turkish colonialism produces nothing else, but a closeness to colonialism and the bourgeoisie of the oppressive nation. These are nothing else but efforts and tendencies to convince the working class to disinterest and give up the vanguard and leadership mission in the struggle of oppressed nations, and to renounce the Marxist theory in the eyes of oppressed nations. The most important demand of all the oppressed social parts including the working class is the free propaganda, agitation and organization, that means political freedom. Does a working class, which can not fight for political freedom and political democracy, become a class of its own?

The DHKP-C (People's Revolutionary Liberation Party-Front) is another example of the relationship with theory. They have the view and belief that the theory about the national question and the Kurdish national question is completed through the repetition of the formulation of "self-determination right of nations". According to them, the revolution will guarantee the self-determination of the Kurdish nation anyway. Therefore, the determined struggle of the Kurdish nation for its own self-determination, couldn’t be a lever for the political struggle for democracy, but would be "Kurdish nationalism"! The Kurdish people under a colonial yoke have to wait until they are freed by the revolution of the oppressive nation, everything else would be "nationalism", "Kurdish nationalism"! This is the result of mummification and emptying the revolutionary content of the theory without the need for the revisionism of theory.

Despite the difference of their theoretical reference points, the political attitudes of the TKP and the DHKPC are similar to each other. For us, it is a striking reality that revisionism and dogmatism (doctrinairism) unite in the same political conclusion! What must be emphasized is undoubtedly the social-chauvinism of the two tendencies and structures of the oppressor nation's laboring left movement, one of which is reformist and the other one is revolutionary, whose theory and practice are based on condemning the uprising of the oppressed nation against the colonialism as “Kurdish nationalism”.

It is also striking that these two currents, which present themselves as the most susceptible defenders of the struggle against imperialism, share the similar attitudes that do not take imperialist globalization seriously. This is also valid on their transition and conversion of anti-imperialism to nationalism. It is a talky talk which calls the Kurdish nation, who already struggles against one of the strongest supports of imperialism in the region, namely Turkish colonialism, to struggle against the common enemy imperialism.

Not willing to accept the reality of imperialist globalization is an anachronistic situation, in which these circles lose their relation to the practical issues of today due to their past mode of thinking and speaking. To become a vanguard, it is required to have the ability to understand and respond to the new situations. Theoretical wardship is not compatible with the vanguard. The conclusions of the Marxist analysis of imperialist globalization show the way of revolutionary development:

"In the stage of imperialist globalization, the ranks of the proletariat have widened. The material basis of international identities has strengthened. The differences in the social positions between the mental and manual labor have decreased. The proletarian and non-proletarian oppressed and exploited working classes have come closer to each other. The possibilities of the working class uniting the other oppressed under their own program have strengthened.”

The importance of all these with respect to revolutionary programs and strategies is beyond discussion. But if they do not claim the opposite, it is crystal clear to the structures that these realities are undeniable. We do not know if they reject these realities. But that the situation requires them to take an attitude is clear. Let us continue:

"Just as the revolution can emerge in the weakest link or in the weakest links in the imperialist chain, the level of today's imperialist capitalism has created the possibility of regional revolutions. The same situation has ripened the objective conditions for the development of revolutions of individual countries towards regional revolutions and a wave of world revolutions. It strengthens the possibility of revolutions mutually triggering each other in many countries.” (PS, 83)

At the beginning of the 2000's, the Marxist-Leninist Communists included the possibility of regional revolutions in their program. The revolutionary foresight and orientation of regional revolutions became verified  within barely 10 years, when the Middle East created a regional revolutionary situation, that shattered the despotic rules and created a revolutionary opportunity for the peoples of the region in which the Rojava Revolution appeared as the most advanced gains of political revolutions and regional revolutions. Revolutionary practice has made the revolutionary theory solid. Many other conclusions of the Marxist analysis of imperialist globalization are listed here:

"Under the conditions of imperialist globalization, the anti-imperialist struggle and the anti-capitalist struggle are still interlocked with the democratic and socialist tasks of the proletariat. The material conditions for the rapid transition of democratic revolutions to socialist revolutions have matured.

The worldwide organization of production and the socialization of the productive forces on a globalized scale, the concentration of private property over the means of production in the hands of some world monopolies deepen inequality between classes and exacerbate the contradiction between labor and capital, between people and state worldwide. The same conditions create the worldwide conditions for the material, technical basis of socialism, in other words, the conditions for a social revolution."

You can not close your eyes to all this! No structure of the working class can disregard the reality of imperialist globalization. They can not remain disinterested in the conclusions of the Marxist analysis of imperialist globalization and turn their backs from it. The reality of imperialist globalization and the conclusions of its Marxist analysis are linked to the historical right of existence of the structures in the ranks of the laboring left. Not only the reality of imperialist globalization, but also its Marxist analysis challenges the structures within the laboring left:

“The economic crisis burst out in 2007-2008, is a violent expression of the existential crisis of capitalism. Capital's losing its ability to develop the productive forces, therefore the situation corresponding to the dissolution of its historical existence basis, signifies the economical, political and ideological crisis of the bourgeois relations of production.

The existential crisis of capitalism demonstrates that the form of society based on capital production has reached to a point that it can no longer be sustained. It means that capitalism has expired its historical due and this hunch standing on the back of the proletariat must be overthrown immediately. It also point out that unless this is succeeded, bourgeoisie will pull down the working class and the oppressed to much more barbaric and dishonoring conditions.” (a.g.e.)

By avoiding the analysis of the reality of imperialist globalization, you are not only cutting the connection between theory and living life, but your right to exist is being questioned by the history in which you are moving. The theory, which loses the connection to vital life, freezes and loses its light.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the III. International, in line with the Marxist analysis of imperialism, emphasized the slogan "Workers of all countries and oppressed nations, unite!" The communist vanguard leaning on the Marxist analysis of the current imperialist globalization, now raises “the slogan 'workers of all countries and all oppressed, unite!' under these conditions”!

The seeking of revolutionary road develops in the unity of theory with practice. Just as the revolutionary theory have the periods of upsurges which open new horizons and perspectives, the revolutionary praxis also have the moments and processes which open new paths. What is essential is that the seeking of a revolutionary path proceeds through the application of revolutionary theory on revolutionary action as a unity of theory and practice. The claim for an evolving, growing revolutionary leadership have to be reflected in certain theoretical issues of the time. The Kurdish national question, internationalism, the organizational structure of the party, the women's liberation struggle, the formation of fronts, imperialist globalization, the regional revolution, and others belong to the vital theoretical questions of our time. Without this and the effort to clarify other theoretical questions, without a continuous theoretical work, you can not be a vanguard. The vanguard seeking of revolutionary road is not only theoretical, but also practical, actioning, holistic and continuous.

*Footnote:

The Marxist Leninist Communists lean their political strategy on the facts that the unified revolution of Turkey and Kurdistan has begun in the form of uprising of the Kurdish people against Turkish colonialism and that the victory of the revolution depends on the development of the second revolutionary front in the Western Turkey. Their theoretical attitude and efforts carry a great significance. From the beginning of the 90's until today, no other organization from the laboring left has shown a similar meticulous theoretical and practical effort. The programmatic stance of united sovietic republics has led the theoretical and practical efforts. Just to name some of these theoretical and practical efforts: the Marxist analysis of the ongoing war in Kurdistan, the right of unification of Kurdish nation and Kurdistan, handling the peace demand of Kurdish people as an issue of revolutionary politics, taking care of the autonomy issue, struggling against chauvinism and social-chauvinism, organizing communists in Kurdistan and socialist patriotism,  the tendency and definition of “solution from the laboring perspective” which means the democratic-based revolutionary reconstruction of “national unity” through a free and voluntary unification in a federation of equal nations... To these, we should add the criticism of “revolutionariness which does not understand the revolution”, directed to the laboring left. A serious and conclusive theoretical struggle has been waged in this field throughout the last quarter century. This had a profound impact. Seeking for revolutionary path has been uninterruptedly carried on theoretically and practically.
 

 

Archive

 

2019
March
2018
November September
June March
2017
October
2008
December January
2007
January
2006
January
2005
April
2004
September

 

Imperialist Globalization and Seeking of Revolutionary Road
fc Share on Twitter

 

The writing task on imperialist globalization in the context of the development of Marxist theory took us to “history”. In the first half of 1995, when the Unity Revolution became a tangible reality in the days of fighting under fire, its notion had not yet been arisen. But the Marxist-Leninist Communists at that time had not scrutinized the relationship of the revolutionary movement with the theory in a critical and revolutionary way when they had already developed their own position. In the fall of 1995, the first issue of Proletarian Direction (Proleter Doğrultu, theoretical organ) appeared, defining the relationship between revolutionary communists and theory as follows:

"Communists must continue to defend 'dogmatically' the main principles of Marxism-Leninism. There must be no doubt or restraint. However, they must not be dogmatic in their defense of the main principles when it comes to the theoretical work-up and the theoretical construction with regard to the given conditions and the world. What is to be done on this basis is the masterful application of the Marxist method and dialectical materialism, creative, evolving, and responsive to the needs of political struggles."(PD, Issue 1, p.5)

This foresight and definition guides the communist vanguard in its relationship with theory, as well as its theoretical evolution. The most important tasks of the last twenty years of the class struggle have raised theoretical questions that have found an echo in the intellectual work of the communist vanguard. These include various topics ranging from the tasks related to Kurdish question to similar questions and issues of struggle and organization forms, the women's liberation struggle, internationalism, the question of building fronts, the regional revolution and the organizational structure of the party, etc.  With the perspective to tie the theoretical work to the needs of the political struggle, of course, the "imperialist globalization" is discussed within the theoretical work. It is problematized to draw revolutionary conclusions from it. In summary, the history of the communist vanguard has determined its extraordinary position on the issue of imperialist globalization.

From a theoretically perspective, the new stage of monopoly capital today exists under the conditions of imperialist globalization, so there is an existential need for the structures of the laboring left movement, whether revolutionary or reformist, or oscillating between reformism and revolutionariness, to analyze the reality of imperialist globalization that they want to destroy or change, to derive their theory, and to draw conclusions for program and strategy, because of the reality "without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movement".

Within the laboring left movement, imperialism has already been talked much about. But still you will hardly witness any significant discussions and polemics about the "imperialist globalization", which we call "imperialism of our time." It would also be surprising to find complete and comprehensive analyzes of imperialist globalization. Structures that place the fight against imperialism and the "question" of independence at the center of their strategy, speak more than anyone else about the fight against imperialism, but because they do not interpret the reality of imperialist globalization and close their eyes to the level and phase of the imperialist globalization of monopoly capitalism, they are always at risk of slipping into nationalism.

It can not be said that the entire laboring left movement is indifferent to the reality of imperialist globalization. In very different parts of the laboring left movement, some peculiarities of imperialist globalization are expressed separately and in an isolated way, and even emphasized in some situations. For example, many structures and circles accept the reality that world monopolies are the foundation of today's imperialism. There are also structures in the laboring left movement, which differentiate that the production is organized internationally and that the labor force has socialized on an international level. There are different circles which see that nowadays finance capital is superior to industrial capital, just as speculative capital movement has become a characteristic feature of finance capital, or that all the contradictions of capitalist modes of production have become internationalized and become global problems etc.

Yes, you can see trees, the qualities characterizing imperialist globalization can be named as individual facts, but nevertheless it is not understood that these facts, as a whole, make up imperialist globalization. They are structural components of it, and in any case do not exist outside of this whole as isolated and separate, this whole is the stage of the imperialist globalization of monopoly capitalism.

The situation can be described more or less this way, so trees are seen! But how about the forest, why can it not be seen as the trees are standing as forming components? Why is the forest not mentioned? How can it be more difficult to see the forest than the trees? We will return to this, but first explain the position of the Marxist-Leninist Communists about the "forest". One of the important additions to the program of the MLKP after its 5th Congress defines imperialist globalization as follows:

"Today is a time characterized by the total control in production, trade and capital export, of the international monopolies and world monopolies, which are the biggest ones of those, over the integrated world market; a time in which the production process itself has also globalized, which speculative capital has gained a significant position within the total capital movement, which international monopolies and imperialist states enter into a violent competition with each other and struggle for redivision of the world on the basis of this competition, which neocolonialism was transformed into a heavier form of yoke, financial-economic colonialism. Today, with all these distinctive features, world capitalism has reached another stage of imperialism: the stage of imperialist globalization." (from the central organ of the MLKP, Voice of the Party, 83rd issue)

This definition includes the specificities of the stage of imperialist globalization of monopoly capitalism, which is why it offers us something holistic. Because the "forest", that is, the level of the new quality, has become clear, it has become possible to understand the trees and to explain their nature accordingly. In her 5th congress, the MLKP has ended the state of "not seeing the forest" for herself and, in respect to reality, made imperialist globalization a question of revolutionary theory, of program and of strategy, proving a great theoretical energy. On the other hand, we have to say that this is still a belated revolutionary push. Those who follow the development of the Marxist-Leninist Communists know that the reality of imperialist globalization is not new to their agenda. Even the term "imperialist globalization" has been used much earlier, and moreover, they have unintentionally lost a great period of time due to heavy state attacks to the party after officially taking this issue into their own agenda until the time the analysis finally came to an end. It is also noteworthy that the decisions of the 5th Congress on imperialist globalization, as noted in the Voice of the Party (Partinin Sesi, PS), are the result of collective discussions.

The answers of the questions above lead us to the analysis of the problem of the relationship that builds the laboring left movement with theory and the state of theoretical tasks. One of the most outstanding qualities of revolutionary history between 1965-1970 and 1975- 1980 is the vibrant, dynamic climate in both periods, during which countless analyzes, written or other forms of discussions and direct mass meetings on theoretical, political (program, strategy and tactics) and organizational issues that have led to polemics. That was a "revolutionary atmosphere". No matter what other weaknesses the laboring left movement had at that time in its approach to theory, it was the expression of the intellectual and practical seeking for a revolutionary road of the subjects and subject candidates born into this ongoing historical time (Here we add in parenthesis immediately that "in this case, the opposite is true." Disinterest in the theory, namely, reflects the loss of the revolutionary claim, and above all, an erosion of the 'revolutionary pathfinder' and the 'leadership claim').

In relation to the fundamental questions of the revolution, the present state of the laboring left movement is quite different from the examples above. Analyzes and polemics about the fundamental questions and the efforts of revolutionary theory are barely developed and very pale. This state is not a reality that can easily be overlooked and neglected by the laboring left movement. We are certainly facing with a very significant problem here.

Why is the theoretical dynamic and the seeking of a revolutionary road of the laboring left movement so weak? In the parenthesis the first answer was given. The answer lies in the reality of the "loss of revolutionary commitment". Let's take a closer look at the situation of the laboring left movement.

In the turn of 1989-90, the moment had arrived when the defeat of 20th-century's socialism was established with its previous capitalist restoration, dissolution and collapse. On the other hand, new order of monopoly capitalism, transition to the stage of imperialist globalization, has matured. The vital issues of revolutionary programs and class struggles have been redrawn worldwide. Above all, these gigantic developments have provoked shocks that erode the Marxist, socialist or other ideological claiming structures (TDKP -Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey-, TKEP -Communist Laborers' Party of Turkey-, etc.). In the wake of the events of 1989/90, claims were replaced in an ideological state of shock, resulting in ideological confusion, destruction and liquidation. As a result, large sections of the laboring left movement have repeated their previous positions, leading to a new "conservatism and dogmatism". In this transitional period, -that is, the early period in which ideological decay was decisive, but also only in the early days- this new "conservatism and dogmatism" played a moral and political role, partially, a revolutionary role. But in hindsight, they have led to or caused disinterest in the basic dialectical-materialistic explanation of our world today and in the conclusions for program and strategy. By insisting on the previous theory, program and strategy or not being able to develop theory, program and strategy in such a way that they could provide answers to the new economic, social and political conditions, one was theoretically stuck, just as one was politically pinned and repeated.

"Why you can not see the forest" is answered by the truth that 'the theory has become a blindfold based on theoretical blindness'. Deeper historical reasons can be found in the structuring of the international communist movement of the second half of the 20th century and in the examination of the relationship to them.

Almost all of the structures that make up the laboring left movement express their goal of socialism and revolution. They see themselves as responsible for the social classes they want to represent. The structures that more or less follow their goals cannot restrain themselves, or be afraid to analyze the reality of imperialist globalization, to create their theory, and to take the responsibility to change on program and strategy.

After the fascist military coup of September 12th, 1980, in the late 80's and early 90's, there was partly a liveliness and new search in the laboring left movement for analysis, discussions, etc. basic problems. But there has been developed no analysis and discussion dynamics and search, no revolutionary atmosphere that was similar or comparable to the periods between '65-'70 and '75-'80. Immediately after the events of 1989 (the dissolution and collapse of the USSR, the abolition of the Warsaw Pact, etc.), the discussions which were heated more within the revolutionary wing of the laboring left movement and in which everyone expressed their opinion within the framework of previously established ideological positions, some have shown a talent for development, but they were not productive and evolving and not long termed anyway. The struggle for socialism has passed into a new age, but the structures with a socialist claim have failed to understand or interpret that a new historical period has come. In other words, they have resisted to stay in the past, with little or no effort at all, in understanding and interpreting the new period, and demonstrated rather little dynamic.

Every revolutionary party is itself undoubtedly a search for a revolutionary path. This essential, existential reality manifests itself in its theoretical and practical efforts. As the mental-intellectual effort and production, and the physical-concrete action weaken in this seeking of revolutionary road, the “claims”, “ideals” and “commitment” to their own goals also weaken. This reality means that the mentioned parties are getting to become less and less "significant" and "necessary", and history is questioning their right to exist. It is inevitable that those structures  having little ability to adapt to the new historical period and restructure, have to deal with matter of life and death. Likewise, it has become more apparent that some parts of the laboring left movement have suffered a process of dying peculiar to the political currents in the last 10-15 years. But on the other hand, also tendencies and structures that had a great talent to understand the new historical conditions have come to the fore. The formation of an opportunism corresponding to the structure of this period (two wings of the current TKP  -Communist Party of Turkey- comes to mind!) can also be included.

 

How is the revolutionary theory developing?

 

Since the foundation of Marxist theory by Marx and Engels to the present day, the basic driving force of the development of revolutionary theory, has been the effort of the parties of all countries, which are entitled to socialism and revolution (currents, groups and organizations included), the will to answer the revolutionary questions of the economic and social conditions of their present time as well as the class struggle in a conceptual and practical way. For this, we must also count the efforts of Marxist academicians.

Lenin has often and for various reasons approached to the question of the renewal of Marxist theory and Marxist movement. He emphasized the revolutionary feature of Marxist doctrine:

“Doctrine—said Engels, referring to himself and his famous friend—is not a dogma, but a guide to action. This classical statement stresses with remarkable force and expressiveness that aspect of Marxism which is very often lost sight of. And by losing sight of it, we turn Marxism into something one-sided, distorted and lifeless; we deprive it of its life blood; we undermine its basic theoretical foundations—dialectics, the doctrine of historical development, all-embracing and full of contradictions; we undermine its connection with the definite practical tasks of the epoch, which may change with every new turn of history.” (Vladimir I. Lenin, Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism)

Structures which speak and act in the name of Marxism, socialism, and revolution are, in a way, breaking off the relationship of Marxism with the practical questions of our epoch by ignoring the realities of "imperialist globalization" which define the economical, social and political situation of our time. Or they stay behind the "time". Speaking a lot about "imperialism", but disregarding and ignoring the imperialist globalization, is nothing more than the mummification of Marxism anyway. It is not surprising that this also takes away the revolutionary content of the anti-imperialist struggle, and causes degeneration in the form of nationalism and so on.

The question here is to know and understand how to adapt Marxist theory to changing economic and social conditions, this is how the theory develops anyway. Lenin does not hold back when it comes to fighting firmly with the comrades who did not understand this. This example is more than instructive for us: under the new conditions after the February Revolution of 1917, which had overthrown the Tsarist order, Lenin criticized the "Old Bolsheviks" in a perfect way and defined the task of Marxist theory perfectly:

“For the present, it is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the true facts of and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only embracing life in all its complexity.”

“Theory, my friend, is gray, but green is the eternal tree of life.” (Vladimir I. Lenin, Letters on tactics)

Well, "Which revolution are you talking about?" can be asked. Of course, here we are discussing the state of the laboring left movement in regard of the theoretical tasks and production of the theory. But this discussion also has a "connection with the revolution". The criticism of the Marxist-Leninist Communists against the laboring left movement on the issue of Kurdish national revolution in the 1990's still holds its actuality as it describes a "revolutionariness which does not understand the revolution". The revolutionariness which does not understand the revolution sustains itself today by updating  through the rejection of the Rojava revolution. While some parts of the laboring left movement may find anti-imperialism when they look at the despotic collaborative Assad regime, but they somehow cannot see the Rojava revolution!

As students of Lenin, we need to hold imperialist globalization into account, the "living reality, definite and concrete facts".

Let's move on. Later in the same work by Lenin, we find the following lines:

"Marxism demands of us the most accurate, objectively verifiable analysis of the interrelationship of classes and the specific features of each historical moment. We Bolsheviks have always endeavored to live up to this demand, which is entirely indispensable from the point of view of any scientific justification of politics. 'Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to action.'

Marx and Engels emphasized, rightfully mocking memorizing and simply repeating "formulas" that are at best suited to just outlining the general tasks that must be done the concrete economic and political situation in every particular section of the historical process will inevitably be modified." (Vladimir I. Lenin: Letters on Tactics)

It is evident, that there is a lack of interest in the theory and a lack of self-confidence in certain theoretical questions. Yes, on the one hand, there is a liberal, liquidating case, spinning away from Marxism and a reality of escaping from it; but on the other hand, the tendency of freezing the theory, in a way, theoretical conservatism and cutting the connections of Marxism from daily questions, mummifying it, still strongly continue to exist. This situation of the laboring left movement is not only evident in avoiding the analysis of imperialist globalization and being unable to bring this as an issue of revolutionary theory, program and strategy. From the Kurdish national question to the formation of fronts, from the women's liberation struggle to the organizational structure of the Marxist party, from internationalism to regional revolution included, we can see the same reality in these and in other questions too. But we must emphasize the importance of the special peculiarity of the holistic and periodical scope and the dominant feature of the imperialist globalization question which reshaped the face of earth.

Throughout the transitional period, which was at the same time the beginning of a new historical period in the struggle for socialism, the Kurdish national democratic struggle against colonialism, the national revolutionary uprising has always been the main and decisive problem of the class struggle. Political freedom is not only a vital need and demand of the Kurdish nation, but also of the working class and all the oppressed. But especially after the fascist military coup on September 12th, 1980, there was a break in the consciousness of the working class and the terror of disorganization, following the restoration of the experience of socialism in the 20th century. The heavy ideological burden of defeat based on dissolution and decay and many other causes have ultimately led to the fact that the working class couldn’t lead the struggle for political freedoms and couldn’t play it’s role as the leading and vanguard class. It can be said that since the ‘Spring-movement' of 1989 and the resistance of the miners in Zonguldak, the Kurdish national uprising has been taking place at the center of the political freedom struggle. Because the primary theme of the struggle between oppressors and the oppressed has been, above all, the "Kurdish national question” and the “Kurdish national liberation struggle", this issue must have been the first theoretical agenda of discussion for all the structures, which claim socialism and revolution.* There is no doubt about it, however the opposite seems to be a very clear truth.

We must emphasize that, in fact, there is a strikingly curious situation within various structures of the laboring left in regard of their theoretical activity in the context of national question. When it comes to the Kurdish national question and the national democratic movement, the TKP is first to come to mind as it holds a special position within the laboring left movement. The patented TKP, which has split theatrically, loves to speak in the mood as if they are the only one who understands Marxism in Turkey. Their relationship to the Kurdish national democratic movement and the Kurdish national question is based on telling and explaining that Lenin was wrong about the "self-determination right of nations" and self-determination is not really important, it can be neglected etc. Here, the function of producing "new theory" means the realization of a social-chauvinist line and legitimizing this line through Marxist and socialist perspective. Of course, when the function of the "Marxist theory" regarding the Kurdish national question becomes running away from national issues and the Kurdish national liberation struggle, the aim of political strategy and tactics becomes undertaking the duty of keeping the working class away from the national democratic movement and creating disinterest towards it. The effort to "develop" theory is realized here as the revision of the theory. According to them, it is inappropriate to speak of the liberation struggle of the oppressed nation. Because that would mean to rise to the bait of the imperialists. The oppressed Kurdish nation must wait to be freed by socialism. Otherwise they would become a play-ball of the imperialists, etc. This social-chauvinistic alienation of the Kurdish nation's struggle against Turkish colonialism produces nothing else, but a closeness to colonialism and the bourgeoisie of the oppressive nation. These are nothing else but efforts and tendencies to convince the working class to disinterest and give up the vanguard and leadership mission in the struggle of oppressed nations, and to renounce the Marxist theory in the eyes of oppressed nations. The most important demand of all the oppressed social parts including the working class is the free propaganda, agitation and organization, that means political freedom. Does a working class, which can not fight for political freedom and political democracy, become a class of its own?

The DHKP-C (People's Revolutionary Liberation Party-Front) is another example of the relationship with theory. They have the view and belief that the theory about the national question and the Kurdish national question is completed through the repetition of the formulation of "self-determination right of nations". According to them, the revolution will guarantee the self-determination of the Kurdish nation anyway. Therefore, the determined struggle of the Kurdish nation for its own self-determination, couldn’t be a lever for the political struggle for democracy, but would be "Kurdish nationalism"! The Kurdish people under a colonial yoke have to wait until they are freed by the revolution of the oppressive nation, everything else would be "nationalism", "Kurdish nationalism"! This is the result of mummification and emptying the revolutionary content of the theory without the need for the revisionism of theory.

Despite the difference of their theoretical reference points, the political attitudes of the TKP and the DHKPC are similar to each other. For us, it is a striking reality that revisionism and dogmatism (doctrinairism) unite in the same political conclusion! What must be emphasized is undoubtedly the social-chauvinism of the two tendencies and structures of the oppressor nation's laboring left movement, one of which is reformist and the other one is revolutionary, whose theory and practice are based on condemning the uprising of the oppressed nation against the colonialism as “Kurdish nationalism”.

It is also striking that these two currents, which present themselves as the most susceptible defenders of the struggle against imperialism, share the similar attitudes that do not take imperialist globalization seriously. This is also valid on their transition and conversion of anti-imperialism to nationalism. It is a talky talk which calls the Kurdish nation, who already struggles against one of the strongest supports of imperialism in the region, namely Turkish colonialism, to struggle against the common enemy imperialism.

Not willing to accept the reality of imperialist globalization is an anachronistic situation, in which these circles lose their relation to the practical issues of today due to their past mode of thinking and speaking. To become a vanguard, it is required to have the ability to understand and respond to the new situations. Theoretical wardship is not compatible with the vanguard. The conclusions of the Marxist analysis of imperialist globalization show the way of revolutionary development:

"In the stage of imperialist globalization, the ranks of the proletariat have widened. The material basis of international identities has strengthened. The differences in the social positions between the mental and manual labor have decreased. The proletarian and non-proletarian oppressed and exploited working classes have come closer to each other. The possibilities of the working class uniting the other oppressed under their own program have strengthened.”

The importance of all these with respect to revolutionary programs and strategies is beyond discussion. But if they do not claim the opposite, it is crystal clear to the structures that these realities are undeniable. We do not know if they reject these realities. But that the situation requires them to take an attitude is clear. Let us continue:

"Just as the revolution can emerge in the weakest link or in the weakest links in the imperialist chain, the level of today's imperialist capitalism has created the possibility of regional revolutions. The same situation has ripened the objective conditions for the development of revolutions of individual countries towards regional revolutions and a wave of world revolutions. It strengthens the possibility of revolutions mutually triggering each other in many countries.” (PS, 83)

At the beginning of the 2000's, the Marxist-Leninist Communists included the possibility of regional revolutions in their program. The revolutionary foresight and orientation of regional revolutions became verified  within barely 10 years, when the Middle East created a regional revolutionary situation, that shattered the despotic rules and created a revolutionary opportunity for the peoples of the region in which the Rojava Revolution appeared as the most advanced gains of political revolutions and regional revolutions. Revolutionary practice has made the revolutionary theory solid. Many other conclusions of the Marxist analysis of imperialist globalization are listed here:

"Under the conditions of imperialist globalization, the anti-imperialist struggle and the anti-capitalist struggle are still interlocked with the democratic and socialist tasks of the proletariat. The material conditions for the rapid transition of democratic revolutions to socialist revolutions have matured.

The worldwide organization of production and the socialization of the productive forces on a globalized scale, the concentration of private property over the means of production in the hands of some world monopolies deepen inequality between classes and exacerbate the contradiction between labor and capital, between people and state worldwide. The same conditions create the worldwide conditions for the material, technical basis of socialism, in other words, the conditions for a social revolution."

You can not close your eyes to all this! No structure of the working class can disregard the reality of imperialist globalization. They can not remain disinterested in the conclusions of the Marxist analysis of imperialist globalization and turn their backs from it. The reality of imperialist globalization and the conclusions of its Marxist analysis are linked to the historical right of existence of the structures in the ranks of the laboring left. Not only the reality of imperialist globalization, but also its Marxist analysis challenges the structures within the laboring left:

“The economic crisis burst out in 2007-2008, is a violent expression of the existential crisis of capitalism. Capital's losing its ability to develop the productive forces, therefore the situation corresponding to the dissolution of its historical existence basis, signifies the economical, political and ideological crisis of the bourgeois relations of production.

The existential crisis of capitalism demonstrates that the form of society based on capital production has reached to a point that it can no longer be sustained. It means that capitalism has expired its historical due and this hunch standing on the back of the proletariat must be overthrown immediately. It also point out that unless this is succeeded, bourgeoisie will pull down the working class and the oppressed to much more barbaric and dishonoring conditions.” (a.g.e.)

By avoiding the analysis of the reality of imperialist globalization, you are not only cutting the connection between theory and living life, but your right to exist is being questioned by the history in which you are moving. The theory, which loses the connection to vital life, freezes and loses its light.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the III. International, in line with the Marxist analysis of imperialism, emphasized the slogan "Workers of all countries and oppressed nations, unite!" The communist vanguard leaning on the Marxist analysis of the current imperialist globalization, now raises “the slogan 'workers of all countries and all oppressed, unite!' under these conditions”!

The seeking of revolutionary road develops in the unity of theory with practice. Just as the revolutionary theory have the periods of upsurges which open new horizons and perspectives, the revolutionary praxis also have the moments and processes which open new paths. What is essential is that the seeking of a revolutionary path proceeds through the application of revolutionary theory on revolutionary action as a unity of theory and practice. The claim for an evolving, growing revolutionary leadership have to be reflected in certain theoretical issues of the time. The Kurdish national question, internationalism, the organizational structure of the party, the women's liberation struggle, the formation of fronts, imperialist globalization, the regional revolution, and others belong to the vital theoretical questions of our time. Without this and the effort to clarify other theoretical questions, without a continuous theoretical work, you can not be a vanguard. The vanguard seeking of revolutionary road is not only theoretical, but also practical, actioning, holistic and continuous.

*Footnote:

The Marxist Leninist Communists lean their political strategy on the facts that the unified revolution of Turkey and Kurdistan has begun in the form of uprising of the Kurdish people against Turkish colonialism and that the victory of the revolution depends on the development of the second revolutionary front in the Western Turkey. Their theoretical attitude and efforts carry a great significance. From the beginning of the 90's until today, no other organization from the laboring left has shown a similar meticulous theoretical and practical effort. The programmatic stance of united sovietic republics has led the theoretical and practical efforts. Just to name some of these theoretical and practical efforts: the Marxist analysis of the ongoing war in Kurdistan, the right of unification of Kurdish nation and Kurdistan, handling the peace demand of Kurdish people as an issue of revolutionary politics, taking care of the autonomy issue, struggling against chauvinism and social-chauvinism, organizing communists in Kurdistan and socialist patriotism,  the tendency and definition of “solution from the laboring perspective” which means the democratic-based revolutionary reconstruction of “national unity” through a free and voluntary unification in a federation of equal nations... To these, we should add the criticism of “revolutionariness which does not understand the revolution”, directed to the laboring left. A serious and conclusive theoretical struggle has been waged in this field throughout the last quarter century. This had a profound impact. Seeking for revolutionary path has been uninterruptedly carried on theoretically and practically.