“Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles.”[1] This is the briefest summary of 20th century. In imperialist epoch, it is possible neither to make a correct analysis of imperialism nor to develop an adequate anti-imperialism without taking into account the unequal but interdependent relations between countries at different levels of development. However, those Marxists who were carried away with the third-worldist tendency after The Second World War and especially in the 1960s sowed confusion about the inner laws of operation of the imperialist system. Because of the sympathy and support for third-worldism, even bourgeois coquetries, whims in the guise of supporting “national” economy were applauded in the name of anti-imperialism. Medium or less developed capitalist countries of 1960s were categorised as oppressed nations under the label of “neo-colonies” or “semi-colonies”. Thus, the anti-capitalist mission of the struggle of the proletariat against capitalist system (i.e. genuine anti-imperialism) was abandoned based on the illusion that as if there was still a national question in these countries. The fact that imperialism is in fact an economic system that has its embodiment in every capitalist country’s internal functioning was obscured. A false anti-imperialism was created through hollow propagandism suggesting that there can be a “nationally independent” economic functioning even without leaving the system. Though the conscious creators of these kinds of political trends were the Stalinists, some other tendencies who called themselves Trotskyist also contributed to this confusion. For instance, the description of “colony” which Mandel and his tendency helped popularised constitutes a typical example of this. It is not correct to insist on explaining the dependency of former colonial countries on the imperialist system with the concept of “colony” in a world where colonies have gone. In fact, this kind of attitude also comes to mean turning a deaf ear to Trotsky’s analyses. Just like Lenin, Trotsky also explained that imperialist epoch has a different quality from the colonialist period. In his article titled War and International, in 1914, he mentioned the general tendency of decolonization, caused by imperialism and the imperialist war. But a redivision of colonies among the capitalist countries does not enlarge the foundation of capitalist development. … An additional factor of decisive importance is the capitalist awakening in the colonies themselves, to which the present War must give a mighty impetus.[2] Mandel and others who think in a similar way tried somehow to accept only one side of Trotsky’s important considerations on the law of combined and uneven development, i.e. the “unevenness”, and obscure the other side, i.e. “the combined” development. They developed a definition of imperialist epoch that “prevents” (!), “retards” (!) the capitalist development in former colonial countries. The following quote from Mandel gives an example for hollow generalizations in contradiction to realities: Yet, with the beginning of imperialist era, the operation of world capitalist market, let alone easing the “normal” capitalist development of less-developed countries, particularly a profound industrialisation, it constituted a factor hampering such a development. Marx’s formula that every developed country shows to the less developed the picture of their future, which preserved its significance throughout the age of free competition capitalism, has now lost its validity.[3] As if the former colonial countries which gained their national independence in imperialist epoch would have developed more and would have been industrialized faster had they not got into economic relations with the developed capitalist countries and stayed isolated! Marx underlined an essential aspect of capitalist mode of production in saying that “every developed country shows to the less developed the picture of their future.” Capitalism would march towards being a world system incorporating every country and every region with different historical heritages and different levels of development. As a matter of fact, imperialist epoch verified Marx’s analysis of the course of capitalism. So, what is the difference between describing Marx’s important conclusions as “the formulas that make sense in the free competitive period” and saying “the law of uneven and combined development was discovered by Lenin”? To cut it short in the face of these empty muddles one should recall an important answer given to these kinds of assertions: The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world. [4] As Lenin indicates, the result of export of capital to colonial countries was the acceleration of capitalist development in these countries. And what happened? While these countries were driven into a staggering change because of capitalist development, their position, being a colony, could no longer be maintained. Sooner of later they had to take a seat within the family of modern nation-states as unequal elements in the face of powerful ones of the imperialist system. Was this situation the result of a somewhat easy granting of independence by the imperialist countries? Or, had the imperialist countries had to lay the material base causing this result by their own hands, no matter they like it or not, just because of the inner features of expansionism in the finance capital era? These questions have been answered by subsequent events and national liberation struggles of the 20th century. However, Lenin drew attention to progressive tendency laying the material base for the future of colonial countries as early as 1916: “One of the main features of imperialism is that it accelerates capitalist development in the most backward countries, and thereby extends and intensifies the struggle against national oppression.”[5] Thus, the question of national independence which was created but could not be solved in the colonist expansion period of capitalism eventually became a burning question and was solved in imperialist epoch.

From 1905 Lenin noticed that the Russian revolution gave an impetus to bourgeois democratic movements and national awakening in countries like Iran, Turkey and China. National awakening in colonial and semi-colonial countries was loaded with explosives for the world revolution. He considered the awakening in Asia and the rise in national liberation struggles in his articles at that time.[1] In the national awakening in colonial and semi-colonial countries he saw a potential of inflicting a blow to the system of colonialism. And what is more important, he tried to connect the awakening in Asia with the proletarian revolution in the West: The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.[2] As is seen, Lenin did not consider the struggles for national liberation in colonial countries as something isolated from the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat across the world, something not influencing it or being influenced by it. On the contrary, he had the view that social revolutions would proceed through interaction of worldwide revolutionary struggles going on at different levels. Taking into account the conditions of that time, he was pointing out that it would be a serious miscalculation to expect pure social revolutions: To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. -- to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution![3] Basing his analyses on the uneven development of historical process Lenin tackled the national question by dividing countries in different historical steps into mainly three groups.[4] We know that these differences are now generally left far behind considering the present conditions. But, it is important to examine Lenin’s approach on the question at stake to understand the revolutionary line extending back to the past. About those capitalist countries for which the national question was a thing of the past, Lenin said: In the Western countries the national movement is a thing of the distant past. In England, France, Germany, etc., the "fatherland" is a dead letter, it has played its historical role, i.e., the national movement cannot yield here anything progressive, anything that will elevate new masses to a new economic and political life. History's next step here is not transition from feudalism or from patriarchal savagery to national progress, to a cultured and politically free fatherland, but transition from a "fatherland" that has outlived its day, that is capitalistically overripe, to socialism..[5] However, the situation was different in undeveloped countries: They embrace the whole of Eastern Europe and all the colonies and semi-colonies… In those areas, as a rule, there still exist oppressed and capitalistically undeveloped nations. Objectively, these nations still have general national tasks to accomplish, namely, democratic tasks, the tasks of overthrowing foreign oppression .[6] As lessons derived by Marx from the revolutionary experience of 1848 show; the European bourgeoisie was horrified as the proletariat had entered the historical arena and it could not any more lead the bourgeois democratic transformations in a revolutionary way. From then on, this task would be fulfilled by the proletariat within the context of permanent revolution. But according to Lenin, Asia has not yet passed the way Europe had left behind and historical reality was different in various countries of Asia: Advanced Europe is commanded by a bourgeoisie which supports everything that is backward. … Everywhere in Asia a mighty democratic movement is growing, spreading and gaining in strength. The bourgeoisie there is as yet siding with the people against reaction.[7] Lenin thought Asian countries were even far behind Russia from the standpoint of the level of capitalism and thus of the working class. Therefore, it was possible to say that there was a bourgeoisie in these countries that may in a way play the role of the progressive bourgeoisie in Europe in the 18th century. Taking historical differences into account in national question, Lenin considered national awakening in colonies as a progressive step with bourgeois democratic character and he supported them. This way of thinking, prevalent on Lenin, would also be prevalent on national question and the question of colonies which were addressed in the Second Congress of the Comintern and would serve a base for the debates up to now. Indeed, contrary to some arguments, this approach of Lenin towards national question is correct in general and it is not in conflict with the idea of permanence of the proletarian revolution. Therefore, those considerations that Lenin changed his approach on this subject after a certain point are kind of overstatements. Since Lenin did not divide the process of revolution which has to progress under the hegemony of the proletariat into different stages of power; but he was pointing to an inevitable historical process which would open the road for the working class in backward countries. In historically belated colonial and semi-colonial countries, the bourgeoisie could still play a progressive role in the framework of gaining national independence; but in imperialist epoch how comprehensive or stable could it be? It must be kept in mind that Lenin never attributed the bourgeoisie of these counties an absolute or stable progressive mission; quite the contrary, he warned communists about how slippery they could be: Not infrequently (notably in Austria and Russia) we find the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations talking of national revolt, while in practice it enters into reactionary compacts with the bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation behind the backs of, and against, its own people.[8] In fact, national liberation struggles in various Asian and African countries sufficiently exposed the slippery and dual attitude of the bourgeoisie of the colonial and semi-colonial countries which were struggling for their own nation-state in imperialist epoch. But we must never forget that in terms of its historical and social scope a national liberation war is just what it is; and nothing more! A struggle of this kind can obviously march under the leadership of the bourgeoisie; so, it can involve various compromises with imperialists. But this does not reduce a just national uprising of masses to the level of an unjust struggle. Lenin’s warning about this is very important: The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain conditions, be utilised by another “great” power for its own, equally imperialist, aims, is just as unlikely to make the Social Democrats refuse to recognise the right of nations to self determination…[9] He also makes an important assessment about national movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries: …the semi-colonial countries, such as China, Persia and Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population of 1,000 million. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements either have hardly begun, or have still a long way to go. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation -- and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing else than the recognition of the right to self-determination; they must also render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising -- or revolutionary war, in the event of one -- against the imperialist powers that oppress them. [10] Lenin did not content himself with only noting the bourgeois character of national liberation movements. He insists on the necessity of distinguishing between different tendencies within “the bourgeois democratic movement”. According to him, the more revolutionary elements (that is, the petty-bourgeois radicals and peasant masses) should be assisted in their uprisings against the imperialist states oppressing them. But what does that mean? Communists should deal with democratic demands without separating them from the aim of proletarian revolution, and wage their struggle with this approach. The support to be provided by communists to movements of national liberation on the basis of oppressed nations’ just struggle is a secondary issue from the standpoint of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Since the primary concern for the proletariat is to make all democratic demands, including national self-determination, directly part of its struggle for power. Lenin mentioned this important issue in connection with the recognition of national self determination. He made an emphasis on “...the necessity to subordinate the struggle for the demand under discussion and for all the basic demands of political democracy directly to the revolutionary mass struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeois governments and for the achievement of socialism.”[11] Another important point is about what must be understood from the support for national liberation struggles. First, every support only makes sense under certain concrete conditions; so, the question of who will be supported, and how, is not a matter of principle, but a conditional tactical question. Second, revolutionary proletariat gives its support to the just struggle of the oppressed nation and realization of this support depends on the level of the revolutionary organization of the proletariat. For example, a just national struggle may gain a big momentum under circumstances where the workers’ movement is calm or revolutionary political organization of the working class has swung far back for various reasons. Under such circumstances the support of the revolutionary proletariat could largely be on a principal level. But under conditions that revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is on the rise, the task is essentially to support the oppressed nation’s right to self-determination and to work to establish working class hegemony over the toiling masses revolting on the basis of the demand of national liberation. We can reiterate in a brief way that in its revolutionary struggle the proletariat defends the right to national self-determination of a nation with a view to subordinating this democratic demand to its struggle for power. The movement of toiling masses in a country that rises on the basis of demanding national liberation can take a real anti-imperialist course only on this basis, and only under the hegemony of the proletariat. Otherwise a national liberation struggle cannot go beyond its limits. And within these limits, it must never be forgotten that its essential concern is not liberation from the imperialist-capitalist system but from being a colony. Therefore we consider national liberation struggles as anti-colonialist struggles in their essence. And this holds true even if they are waged against an imperialist state in 20th century. Lenin’s assessments on the significance of national liberation struggles gained a new dimension with the victory of October Revolution and establishment process of the Soviet republics following it. Under the new historical setting where the proletariat rose to power in one part of the world it was correct to seek to win over the toiling masses which were struggling for national liberation. By this way, a broad front of struggle against imperialist system on a world scale could be formed under the leadership of the proletariat. Besides, it was even more important at a time when the Soviet proletariat faced an assault of the imperialist powers. The drive for winning the toiling masses of the colonial and semi-colonial countries, particularly in Asia, to the side of the October Revolution was an extension of the national worker-peasant alliance on a world scale. That is why Lenin attributed great importance to national liberation struggles. Nevertheless, looking at his close interest in revolutionary developments in Asian countries, some researchers of history asserted that Lenin was gradually getting away from a “Euro-centric” understanding of revolution. According to them, Lenin moved closer to the idea that an Eastern storm from peasant nations would overthrow capitalism. Although such interpretations have been in circulation for a long time in the name of “Marxism”, they have nothing to do with Lenin. These are exaggerated attempts to portray Lenin as a third-worldist. While noting the awakening in Asia, Lenin was very clear on his conception of the world revolution before and after the October Revolution, and during the first congresses of Comintern. He always believed that the proletarian world revolution could only march to victory through revolutionary leap forward of the proletariat of advanced European countries. About distortions we need to underline one last point. It is true that Lenin considered national liberation struggles as an ally of the proletarian world revolution whose natural aim is to overthrow imperialist-capitalist system. But he never left the door open for anti-Marxist interpretations which amount to identifying the two or substitution of the former for the latter. With the victory of October Revolution and birth of a new political centre of power, he advocated the perspective of bringing the toiling masses of the oppressed nations and colonial countries together in a war front under the politic leadership of the Soviet proletariat. There is no similarity between his approach and the distorted understanding of “anti-imperialist struggle” which was later shaped under the dominance of Stalinism. Because, the latter is a political tendency that substitutes national liberation struggles for the proletarian revolution, and that seeks to prevent the proletariat’s political hegemony. Stalinism in fact forced the revolutionary proletariat to submit to the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie in the name of a so-called anti-imperialist front. With the pretext of defending “the interests of the Soviet state which are supreme,” it strangled revolutions that had the potential of developing towards founding a workers’ rule.

Marxists like Bukharin and Pyatakov considered imperialism as “a system of foreign policy” and consequently took wrong political attitudes about national self-determination. In fact, they shared Lenin’s thought that the 20th century was the era of finance capital. But for Bukharin and Pyatakov, the concept of imperialism meant the “policy” pursued by finance capital. That was the point they moved away from Lenin. However, their approach was completely different from that of renegades like Kautsky who preached that a peaceful policy is well possible and favourable in the imperialist epoch. Bukharin and Pyatakov regarded imperialism as an unavoidable policy of finance capital based on oppression and violence. Bukharin said “Such a policy implies violent methods, for the expansion of the state territory means war”. [1] In fact, the reason that propelled Bukharin to make this assessment of imperialism was his analysis of world economy based on the idea of “national capitalist trust”. According to him, despite a fierce competition on the international arena in the imperialist epoch, competition was coming to an end within national borders because of monopolization. And with active involvement of the state in the economy, one unified trust was appearing on a national scale. And this results in wars between capitalist countries on the international arena for extending their national borders. Finance capital could not do without colonies. But Lenin analyzed and defined imperialism not as a policy of finance capital, but rather as the very international economic system which itself is just the dominance of finance capital. As a result, Lenin did not consider colonies a sine qua non for finance capital. He was right. It is quite possible to gain the political independence within the limits of the system through struggles for national liberation in colonial countries. Yes, imperialist epoch is a reactionary period in general. But this fact does not mean that imperialist countries can only maintain their domination by colonizing other countries. Besides, the real question at stake is not whether imperialist countries would grant political independence to colonial countries or not. The question is whether it is possible to gain political independence within the operation of the laws of imperialist system without breaking with it. Lenin, considering it possible, pointed out that it was through national struggle to achieve it: National struggle, national insurrection, national secession are fully “achievable” and are met with in practice under imperialism. They are even more pronounced, for imperialism does not halt the development of capitalism and the growth of democratic tendencies among the mass of the population. [2] In addition, Lenin criticized Rosa Luxemburg, Pyatakov and Bukharin for being carried away by the tendency of imperialist economism. These Marxists held a view that can be summarized as self-determination of nations was impossible under capitalism, and it was unnecessary under socialism since national question would have already been solved under socialism. What lies beneath their error was the fact that they confused economic liberation with political liberation. So Rosa and co-thinkers substituted the question that if it was possible to gain political independence under capitalism for the fact that there was economic dependence. Lenin reminded them that finance capital was able to subjugate, and already did, an independent country. All theses about the “impossibility” of political independence under the domination of finance capital resulted from lack of an adequate understanding of this matter. Lenin said: In this situation it is not only “achievable”, from the point of view of finance capital, but sometimes even profitable for the trusts, for their imperialist policy, for their imperialist war, to allow individual small nations as much democratic freedom as they can, right down to political independence, so as not to risk damaging their “own” military operations.[3] It is indeed not correct to assert that it is impossible for national self determination to be achieved within the framework of imperialist system. But a self-determination which is merely political independence does not alter painful economic consequences of capitalist system for the working class and toiling masses. From this point of view, what is decisive in determining the fate of the oppressed and exploited masses of weak nations is whether they will emancipate from capitalism or not. Only in this context it can be said that “right of determination” is impossible under capitalism and unnecessary –because the problem will have already been solved– under socialism. But to say that does not mean that we have taken a concrete attitude on the question of the right of political independence which was a practical and actual question on the agenda of the colonial countries. Upon this was Lenin’s criticism of Rosa based. Lenin was right in pointing out that she confused two different aspects. On the other hand, to claim that nations can be economically independent without breaking with imperialist system is a nonsense and reactionary petty-bourgeois utopia. Therefore, the point Lenin and Rosa disagreed on was only the question of “political independence”. They were in complete agreement on the other side of the question, that is, the impossibility of national independence on the level of economy. Rosa Luxemburg correctly grasped the limited side of the national liberation struggle with respect to the future –e.g. the proletarian revolution–, and drew attention to problems that can be created by petty-bourgeois nationalist tendencies. While petty-bourgeois left tendencies are obscuring the revolutionary line of the proletariat, one must definitely be alert that defending the right to national self-determination and opposing annexations should not cast a cloud over the danger of nationalism and social-chauvinism. In capitalist countries where national question has already been solved, and the proletarian revolution is on the agenda, a real danger lies in that the native bourgeoisie may try to sell their self-seeking adventures under cover of national self-determination. Marxists whom Lenin criticized for being fallen into the erroneous imperialist economism did not take into account the different conditions between the countries that were belatedly climbing the steps of history and the countries in which national question was no more on the agenda. They did not reflect adequately on the historically progressive character –with respect to past– of political independence of colonial countries which were backward countries progressing towards capitalism and their joining in the family of modern nation states. For example, Bukharin opposed the inclusion of the principle of national self-determination to the party programme proposed in the Eight Congress of RCP(B) (1919). His reasoning was: “A nation means the bourgeoisie together with the proletariat. And are we, the proletarians, to recognize the right to self-determination of the despised bourgeoisie?”[4] But according to Lenin, the inconsistency that disturbed Bukharin was a fact which existed in real life. Bukharin was talking about a process of separation within nations resulting from the process of capitalist development, i.e. about separation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie. For backward nations this separation was not a completed fact yet. And Lenin took differences of various nations in terms of their historical conditions into consideration on the question of how the right to national self-determination would be used. For example, the following was in his draft program presented to the Eight Congress of RCP(B): On the question of who expresses the will of the nation on the matter of secession, the R.C.P. upholds the historical class view and takes into consideration the level of historical development of the nation concerned—on the way from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy, or from bourgeois to Soviet or proletarian democracy, etc.[5] In short, in order to take a correct attitude in concrete cases, those nations that are at an historical stage where separation between proletariat and bourgeoisie has not sufficiently developed should also be taken into account. Lenin pointed out an important fact: “We say that account must be taken of the stage reached by the given nation on its way from medievalism to bourgeois democracy, and from bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy.”And concluding: “Every nation must obtain the right to self-determination, and that will make the self-determination of the working people easier.” “Communism cannot be imposed by force.”[6]

Within the context of debates on the national question, Lenin paid great attention to the distinction between just and unjust wars. It was indeed very important because of the war conditions of that period to make this distinction and a prerequisite for communists to take the right attitude against wars. The declaration, adopted unanimously in Basel Congress of the Second International in 1912, is particularly important in this context. In this declaration, imperialists’ preparations for a war of plunder were exposed and workers were called for struggling against the threat of war. The idea that this state of war indicated a state of revolution at the same time was generally accepted. Should the war break out, the task of the parties and socialists affiliated to the Second International was to make use of this economic and social crisis for realizing socialist revolution. But when the imperialist war broke out in 1914, most of the socialists who had signed the Basel declaration, broke their word, voted for war budgets in their parliaments, and took sides with their bourgeois governments. The renegades of the Second International, in an attempt to justify their attitude, held on to the lie that even aggressor European countries that started the imperialist division war had the right to “defend the fatherland”. Struggle against this political tendency, namely social-chauvinism in political literature, became a burning question. Therefore, it was a necessity to reassert the distinction between just and unjust wars under conditions of imperialist stage of capitalism. In order to identify the character of a war, one must, above all, clearly identify the character of the policy causing the war. Since every war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. And there cannot be an abstract criterion for judging the character of a war and deciding if it is just or unjust. However, to give an example, French socialists, whose record were remarkably stained for praising “patriotism” in the name of socialism (famous Jaurésism), acted in harmony with their “fame” during the imperialist division war. They could act on the criterion “an attacked country has the right to defence” in the war of competition and re-division of the spheres of influence among imperialist countries. In his criticism of these kinds of chauvinist approaches, Lenin pointed out the very essence of the question; “As if the question were: Who was the first to attack, and not: What are the causes of the war? What are its aims? Which classes are waging it?”[1] While “defence of the fatherland” can have a just and progressive character only under certain historical conditions, its application to a war between imperialists is nothing but deceiving workers and siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie. To expose the deceitfulness of social-chauvinists it is necessary to remember, above all, why Marx and Engels considered national liberation wars between 1789-1871 progressive, just and supportable: When, in speaking of the wars of such periods, socialists stressed the legitimacy of “defensive” wars, they always had these aims in mind, namely revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By a “defensive” war socialists have always understood a “just” war in this sense (Wilhelm Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). It is only in this sense that socialists have always regarded wars “for the defence of the fatherland”, or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just.[2] But the war that broke out in 1914 was an unjust war started by imperialist countries to re-divide the world. Striving to impose the idea of “defence of the fatherland” on the proletariat of imperialist countries meant directly aiding the imperialist powers. In Lenin’s words, “It is in this way that the peoples are being deceived with ‘national’ ideology and the term ‘defence of the fatherland’, by the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie, in the war now being waged between slave-holders with purpose of consolidating slavery.”[3] These kinds of wars are neither just nor defensive wars for the proletariat of those capitalist countries fighting each other to share spheres of influence. For a war of that type there is no sense in asking who attacked first. Because both the “attacking” and “attacked” sides are the sides of a conflict of imperialist interests and therefore the proletariat cannot have a problem like “the defence of the fatherland” in this war. The proletariat is not part of a settling of accounts between capitalist countries challenging each other to gain a more advantageous position against others. For proletarians of capitalist countries involved in war, the question is to wish for the defeat of their “own” government and turn the imperialist war into a civil war which will end the bourgeois order. Proletarians who are armed due to war conditions must take it as their fundamental class task to point their guns to their own bourgeois governments. Replacing this policy with the policy of “defence of the fatherland” is a naked betrayal to the proletarian revolution. Because in countries waging war for imperialist purposes, the proletariat’s involvement in this war with the illusion of “defence of the fatherland” means slaughtering other counties’ proletarians for the sake of its “own” bourgeoisie’s victory. This attitude is obviously trampling on the principle of proletarian internationalism expressed as “workers of all countries, unite”. Just as Lenin said: Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that “the workers have no country” – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.[4] However, opposition to the policy of “defence of the fatherland” does not justify rejecting, or denying the possibility of, any national wars, which means swinging to another extreme. The situation about colonies and oppressed nations that are subject to division in an imperialist war is different. This is because in these countries “defence of the fatherland” contains the solution of a belated historical question, that is, of national independence question. And communists continue to consider wars for national liberation arising on this basis just and progressive. After pointing out that “the fatherland and nation” are historical categories, Lenin says; “I am not at all opposed to wars waged in defence of democracy or against national oppression, nor do I fear such words as ‘defence of the fatherland’ in reference to these wars or to insurrections.”[5] Indeed, socialists always take sides with the oppressed and do not oppose wars waged against capitalist oppression with democratic or socialist content. In order to recognise a national war as a just one, its substance must first be identified. How, then, can we disclose and define the "substance" of a war? War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war. If it was an imperialist policy, i.e., one designed to safeguard the interests of finance capital and rob and oppress colonies and foreign countries, then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist. If it was a national liberation policy, i.e., one expressive of the mass movement against national oppression, then the war stemming from that policy is a war of national liberation.[6] There is not much controversy on that wars waged by oppressed nations for national liberation in colonial countries are just wars. What must be discussed is the situation when a capitalist country which has political independence and is already ruled by the bourgeoisie becomes the subject of an imperialist division war, and is occupied by another one. Can we still talk about a just national war in this situation? Should communists, in the name of not sinking into social-chauvinism, be indifferent to the struggle of revolting toiling masses for “defence of the fatherland” under these conditions? First of all, it must be made clear that in case of an occupation or annexation of the territory of a sovereign nation state, the fundamental question for the communist approach is not whether to defend the land or not. Against an attack or annexation of the land where the working class and toiling masses live, the questions to be answered are: what is to be defended, how, against whom, for what, on what basis? As expressed in Lenin’s attitude, what communists oppose in “defence of the fatherland” is that the proletariat was driven into a position of defending and supporting the bourgeois rule in its own country under the pretext of war. And what is the correct attitude then? The Paris Commune which passed into the history of revolutionary struggle of the world working class as an early experience in the context of “seizure of power” provides us with an early example of this subject as well. While defending Paris against the Prussian army, Communards, who “were ready to storm the heavens” in Marx’ words, did not run to the service of the bourgeois Versailles government. On the contrary, while pushing back the armies of invasion, they established their own rule. The Paris proletariat was too young in terms of political experience. It did not yet win the support of the toiling masses, it was isolated. It did not know what to do, made some mistakes and was defeated in the end. But, despite everything, it showed us an example of the capability of the proletariat armed against the attack of an occupying army to put an end to the rule of its class enemy inside while fighting foreign invaders. Politically inexperienced Paris proletariat was not yet distorted with the strategies of rotten Stalinist “leaders” of later periods, who divided working-class consciousness into endless stages (first struggle together with the bourgeoisie against foreign enemy and then comes the time for struggle against the bourgeoisie, which means never!). Yet, it was still kind of a pre-experience; its shortcomings and mistakes were not to be ignored. Thus Lenin noted the mistakes of the Paris Commune as lessons to be learned. He pointed out that part of Paris workers was plagued by “national ideology”, which was an example of petit-bourgeois illusions leading to vital mistakes. Another example to remember is the case of “national question” that arose in Belgium when it was occupied by Germany during the First World War, which is different from the case of colonial countries. Lenin discussed whether there could be a national war even in a capitalist country like Belgium if Germany occupied it and whether then communists would consider it just or unjust? He maintained that annexations must be opposed and the right to national self-determination must be acknowledged in these kinds of situations as well. Because he was against the mindset of those who consider forceful land annexations “de-facto” situations and take the attitude of indifference in these kinds of changes of border in the name of political-economic centralization which is supposed to pave the way for socialism. That is why he criticized Polish Marxists who were saying “We are absolutely opposed to erecting new border stones in Europe and reconstruction of those destroyed by imperialism”. He considered this justification of annexations a degeneration of Marxism. Maintaining that fusion of nations could only be accomplished on the basis of freewill Lenin stood firm in his position that forceful annexations without the will of people must be opposed. He reminded that even in a country which has resolved the question of independence long time ago –as in the case of Belgium–, defence of national self-determination might come into agenda again. It would be useful to highlight some important points to clarify the subject. Historically, a “national war” in Belgium had nothing in common with national liberation wars in colonial countries. Belgium’s conditions were completely different from colonial countries. The bourgeoisie in a country like Belgium would not suddenly stop being a reactionary class and long-time enemy of the proletariat and gain a relatively “progressive” character just because of an occupation or annexation. Therefore, for these kinds of “national questions” which may occur in capitalist countries, communists’ task is to advocate the right to self-determination in the example of Paris Commune, that is, to connect resolution of these kinds of questions to the proletarian revolution. Thus, an occupation or annexation in a capitalist country brings forth the task of the proletariat to establish its revolutionary hegemony under conditions of war. So, the proletariat must be able to make use of the circumstances that drive the toiling masses to a national revolt, gain the leadership of masses rising for the “defence of the fatherland”, and lead them to social revolution. In today’s world, various disputes and conflicts for interests between major capitalist countries and small ones are also taking place, but this has nothing to do with the struggle between the oppressed and oppressor nations. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, in our view it is an established fact that the toiling masses in relatively smaller and weaker countries are oppressed multiply because of the interventions and pressures by imperialist countries. But, now we have a highly developed nation divided with deep class antagonisms, which is completely different from the conditions of colonial countries where the bourgeoisie could play a progressive role against primitive and reactionary pre-capitalist formations. Now we have capitalist states in front of us with their own political institutions and apparatuses of bourgeois rule. The former question of “the oppressor and oppressed nation” left its place to “oppressor and oppressed class” under the capitalist state. But the question of taking a correct attitude against wars started by imperialist countries in their competition and struggle for hegemony to re-divide spheres of influence still maintains its importance. For instance, is it possible to remain neutral on the question of Iraq where the US, in its growing aggressiveness, is obviously getting prepared for a vicious attack before the eyes of the whole world? Although there is nothing to support in Saddam’s regime, the proletariat has to wage a struggle against imperialist war on a world scale. Without opposing the preparations of American imperialism for an evidently unjust war, it is impossible for the working class to win the toiling masses to its own revolutionary objective neither in Iraq nor in any other country. It would be a great crime not to take an attitude against imperialist war threats and imperialist wars. In the case of a possible war or an US occupation of Iraq, the war of Iraqi people against American imperialism would of course be a just national liberation war. Similarly, it goes without saying that, in the Middle East, Palestinian people’s national liberation war is just against Israel’s unjust war to repress Palestinian people ruthlessly. True, communists advocate national self-determination, oppose military interventions and annexations by imperialist countries. They consider oppressed nations’ struggles for political independence just and support them. But in all capitalist countries, communists’ main concern is to utilise revolutionary situations caused by war in the direction of the proletarian revolution. Struggle against military interventions of imperialist states is to be waged not with a view to promoting “national unity” with the bourgeoisie or consolidating bourgeois governments, but accomplishing the social revolution. Therefore, in all countries under bourgeois rule, communists have to be extremely watchful in case of a war and take saving the working class from the chains of bourgeois “national ideology” as their fundamental duty. As the case of Iraq clearly reveals, the way to get rid of imperialist powers’ unjust and atrocious military interventions does not lie in supporting bourgeois governments playing the “victim”, which leads eventually to survival of their rule. In the face of an unjust imperialist attack, which brings forth the right to self-determination of the attacked country, the task of the revolutionary proletariat is in no way limited to recognising this right. On the contrary, the real task begins at that point. Because, even in just defensive wars in which the working masses, the majority of the nation, take upon the armed struggle to death to save the country from occupation, the bourgeoisie has only one goal: none but to protect its own order and consolidate it! This is what the ruling bourgeoisie understands from the right to self-determination, nothing more! So, the task of the revolutionary proletariat waging its struggle under these conditions is to win the leadership of the nation and pave the way for the toiling masses to determine their own destiny. Under conditions of hot war, in all capitalist countries workers must come forward to turn imperialist wars into civil wars and end bourgeois rule in their own country. There is one question that needs to be highlighted here: if a major imperialist state attacks a smaller capitalist state (as in the Gulf War in which the US attacked Iraq), the victory of relatively smaller capitalist state (you can read it as the victory of Saddam) is said to be a blow to imperialism. According to this approach, the position of the major capitalist state would be shaken because of the defeat, and this would create important possibilities for the struggle of the proletariat. These kinds of speculative considerations underestimate manoeuvring capabilities of imperialist powers and overlook the indispensability of international organization and struggle of the proletariat. In fact, these kinds of attitudes are extensions of a deformed understanding of anti-imperialism. Even if an imperialist country’s adventure in a small country that results in defeat might boost the working masses’ morale on a world scale, one should not make a one-dimensional assessment and this possibility should never be exaggerated. Without having a revolutionary leadership and organization on an international level, it would be a great mistake to expect these kinds of situations to spontaneously create big opportunities for the struggle of the working class. Actually, there is an important point overlooked on the question of major states/small states. Major imperialist powers have indeed a great capacity for manoeuvre so that they can, for instance, even present an adverse situation for them as a “victory” in their military operations carried out for spheres of influence and regional wars instigated by them. But the bourgeois government in the smaller capitalist country subject to military intervention may indeed be shaken by a defeat. In short, in today’s world, those who are swung to a so-called anti-imperialism by saying “support the smaller bourgeoisie against bigger” in regional wars which are provoked by imperialists also disregard revolutionary situations arising in the countries under attack. And in fact what fundamentally scares all imperialist states is not a small capitalist country challenging a major one; but a proletarian revolution breaking out in any capitalist country, no matter how big it is. We can conclude this discussion by approaching the subject from a different angle. Overwhelming majority of colonial and semi-colonial countries of Lenin’s time gained their political independence, thus joining the family of capitalist states by establishing their own nation state. As with Turkey, India and other similar examples, some of these countries even made quite a long way in terms of economy compared to others. Although they are in lower ranks of the imperialist hierarchy, they set about to become regional powers and tease other countries around as they become stronger. Therefore, in order to adopt a correct attitude towards today’s wars, it is necessary to take into account the concrete conditions of the world we live in today and changing conditions in comparison with yesterday. We should not forget that major imperialist countries are not alone in embarking on expansionist adventures. Today, the situation of capitalist countries (like Turkey, India or Iran) which strive to be an imperialist in their region, a sub-imperialist power, is striking. There are skirmishes, reactionary adventures and unjust wars provoked by these countries to create their sphere of influence in their region. The attitude of the proletariat cannot be to wage a “national” or a “fatherland” war in the same front with its “own” bourgeoisie against another one. Because of concrete conditions, Lenin’s warnings made in the context of condemning social-chauvinists of imperialist countries, must be kept in mind by communists of all capitalist countries today. It is downright nationalism and social-chauvinism to justify, under the pretext of “defence of the fatherland,” involvement in a war under bourgeois hegemony for the purpose of strengthening the armies of bourgeois states that drive their nation into unjust wars in their expansionist adventures.