We are in consistent line of the Anti-Imperialist League against the enemies of democracy

Our general assessment that the struggle for democracy is possible through the struggle for revolution forces us to deepen especially on the anti-imperialist struggle. Anti-imperialism is the sine qua non of the struggle for democracy. Of course, this does not mean that every democratic struggle and movement must be consistent and revolutionary to the end. It only means that every democratic struggle contains an anti-imperialist core, and we must be responsible for developing every such core, for grasping it in order to make it coherent. Let us remind you that by grasping we mean to evaluate the thing in question for our purposes, to make it a reality. The intensity, diversity and prevalence of democratic demands point to the magnitude of this responsibility. Undoubtedly, the primary problem in this responsibility is to grasp the reality of democratic demands. The quality of our relationship with reality forms the infrastructure of our responsibility. If our relationship with reality is sectarian, the responsibility is crippled from the very beginning. The decisive importance of having a dialectical materialist perspective is felt here. In order to comprehend the democratic demands embodied in the masses, it will be necessary to start by engaging directly with reality, by observing and analyzing the problems and forms contained in ordinary-casual-flowing life. In order for this process to progress towards real solutions, it is necessary to be consistent to the end and, although it means the same thing, it is necessary to be revolutionary to the end in order to reach the full result.

While there are many ways for those who struggle with real problems to deal with them, there are few ways to eliminate them. The main factor that determines the radical solution of problems is the existence of a revolutionary subject. The contrast between the interests of the subjects who create the problems and the interests of those who experience the problems is embodied in the existence of the problem. Therefore, different interests and different relations are realized in every problem. The solution to eliminate the problem comes from subjects with interests incompatible with the existence of these problems. The interests of this subject are incompatible with the existence of the problem. These interests condition the real solution and enable its realization. It is a special case to rely on these interests and to relate to the problems based on these interests. Clarifying these special situations in revolutionary-democratic struggles is the basis of the responsibility of communists.

Since the interests that condition the solution of problems and the interests that create problems are the elements that determine the relationship with reality, the path that communists will follow in relation to the revolutionary subject is to grasp the interests that condition the solution. In this case, it is clear that we are talking about a responsibility that focuses on the interests of the masses who are the subjects of the struggle for democracy. Meeting with all the subjects of the struggle for democracy is undoubtedly not possible all at once, the whole revolutionary process is about organizing this meeting. The anti-imperialist struggle is the basis of this organization. Winning democracy is possible with the success of the struggle against imperialism. The importance, depth, prevalence and necessity of the anti-imperialist struggle determines the scope of the struggle for democracy. Addressing the issue at the international level is another important aspect that needs to be emphasized. Recent events point to the maturity of the conditions for the anti-imperialist struggle at the international level. The existence and struggles of the nations whose right to self-determination has been usurped and whose territories have been occupied have aroused a considerable mass of people. The progressive sections of the world have embraced the struggle against the great destruction caused by imperialism with great hatred and persistence. The intolerance of this struggle, especially in the “advanced democracies”, is a strong indication of the nature of the conflict of interests in this field. There is a marked intolerance both in the struggle and in the counter-attack. The interests of those who created the problem and the interests of those who favor a revolutionary solution to the problem are at odds, for example in Palestine. It is possible to analyze the maturity and depth of the conditions for the struggle for democracy from the intensity of the contrast here…

The Palestinian question does not only refer to a reality limited to the usurpation of a nation’s right to self-determination, but also to the conditions of an unjust international war in Palestine and other countries with similar contradictions. The maturity of the conditions of the anti-imperialist struggle points to the importance of the struggle for democracy.

A big step has been taken for the anti-imperialist struggle, the formation of the Anti-Imperialist League (AIL) is the guarantee of the democratic front, of all progressive sections in the face of the current imperialist aggression, and this common roof is of great value in terms of defining and concretizing the responsibility mentioned above.

The document we present below defines the ideological and political content of AIL. It is an explanation of the course to be followed and the theoretical position to be taken for the realization of this struggle. This content is the international definition of what we know and what we have. All the understanding put forward here is ours. There is a struggle for democracy all over the world, and hence in Turkey, which we need to raise. This struggle points to the necessity of revolution; precisely for this reason it belongs to us, we are responsible for it. By discussing and concretizing all the content and determinations of the Anti-Imperialist League, let us spread our call to all the anti-imperialists of the world in the strongest way…

The Objective Basis of the Task of the Revolutionary Leadership and the Movement of the Masses

Our precise and clear definition of the leadership of the anti-imperialist struggle can be perceived as a contradiction in terms of the breadth and scope of this struggle. However, the leadership we are talking about must already be inclusive, and only when it achieves this will the “task of leadership” be fulfilled. Therefore, it is necessary to open up this issue, to discuss it and, more importantly, to pave the way for the concretization of the tasks of leadership. The success of the anti-imperialist struggle is a decisive issue for the future of humanity in terms of the communist movement’s identification of the main contradiction at the international level. It must be clear that anyone who neglects this task has nothing to do with communism. Moreover, the process we are in is also a process in which a world war is being discussed, which reminds us that much more topical, unpostponable tasks for the oppressed peoples are right around the corner. Recent developments have also shown that we have to prepare for much bigger attacks.

The great destruction wrought by imperialism has caused immeasurable suffering, insoluble problems and deepening dilemmas in the lives of all peoples. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon; there have been suffering, insoluble problems and deepening dilemmas for the peoples since the conditions of capitalism that gave birth to imperialism and more intensely since the early days of imperialism. In the functioning of capitalism, the interests of a handful of capitalists, not the interests of the peoples, are fundamental. The peoples can only be fed with crumbs in the process of realizing the interests of the capitalists. Just as the minimum wage is a wage set for a worker to reproduce labor-force … Capitalist function needs surplus value in the production of capital. Surplus value can only be produced from the labor of the worker, and without surplus value capital cannot be produced. For the labor of the worker, there is a need for labor-force and the production of labor-force. For labor, a worker needs to be fed, to rest, to be able to labor again. The wage to be spent for this is generally defined as the “minimum wage”. The level of the minimum wage varies, of course. This is not independent of the general level of the country, its economic development and the nature of personal needs. So much so that the economic conditions of the country may pull the level of the minimum wage back from what it “should be”, that is, from the level needed to replace the labor force that the worker has exhausted by working. In this case, the worker is told to “find other means on his own to replace his labor force”. The level of development of capitalism or possible crises can change the level of the minimum wage in both directions. It is low enough not to bourgeoisize the worker, that is, not to make him a capitalist. Capitalism must constantly create these conditions for the worker. It is good for capitalist functioning that he neither owns capital nor is deprived of labor. Both conditions must not materialize.

The conditions of crisis finally arise from the ripening of these two elements. There must be fewer people getting richer, wealth must always accumulate in fewer hands, and the labor power of the workers must participate as much as possible in production. Capitalism cannot carry both of these tendencies to the end, that is why it has been said that it is destined to crisis, that is why the door of capitalism opens to socialism. The opening of this door should not make us think that the transition will be spontaneous. For the transition, force is inevitable, this force, which will be led by the working class, is opposed by imperialism. Our knowledge of imperialism allows us to understand the necessity and severity of this necessity. Some – and there is a considerable number of them – conceive capitalism as a purely economic system, as an inevitable system that favors private property and in this way constantly encourages the creativity of the individual. They consider the struggle against this system as a forced politics, as acting with a Utopian vision of the future. However, this is not the approach to imperialism, which derives from capitalism. Almost everywhere, the idea that imperialism is a purely malevolent structure is dominant, and the destructive struggle against imperialism is not only legitimate but also the basis of credible politics. The politics most popular among the peoples is anti-imperialism. This is a completely justified, legitimate and inevitable trend. The aggression of imperialism against the peoples of the world has been demonstrated once again, most recently in the Palestinian question. The series of events in which the most open massacres, the unjust settlements displacing the Palestinians are supported by imperialism and the hypocritical collaborators of the regional states are complicit in this is just one of the pictures created by imperialism throughout its history. In this respect, it is very important to establish in the consciousness of the peoples the knowledge that imperialism, which is known for its pronounced hostility to the people, is the inevitable result of capitalism. The development of capitalism based on the exploitation of surplus value leads it to imperialism if it is not prevented by the revolution of the working class. Imperialism is the result of the necessity of transferring the aforementioned exploitation of surplus value from its own country to other countries, and this exploitation continues here in the form of plundering almost all the wealth and possible accumulations in countries that have not yet been able to transition to capitalism with their own dynamics and have not yet achieved national sovereignty / full independence. This process, which begins with the export of capital, due to the completely reactionary character of the bourgeoisie, carries rottenness, dependency and often the most open form of tyranny to the countries in question. The prosperity witnessed in the advanced capitalist countries is projected on these countries as “modern civilization” and the goal of reaching them is quickly adopted by the peoples. The current desire to leap forward with computer technology or “artificial intelligence technology” has been a tendency that has distracted these countries throughout their history. In the past it was a desire “for the development of the country as a whole”, now it is more for individual salvation… The desire to take advantage of the opportunities offered by capitalism is an inevitable consequence of the misery in the underdeveloped countries. It is almost always accompanied by more intensive exploitation, more dependency and ultimately destruction, either through economic crisis or through wars in which peoples are slaughtered by invasion or for some other reason. What is left for capitalism, as a system transformed into imperialism, to give to the peoples of the world? We know very well that’s nothing, nothing but endless crises and bitter prescriptions imposed on the people to get rid of the crisis, paralyzing their lives, and wars in which the peoples slaughter each other!

The antagonism of the peoples against imperialism, as well as the antagonism of imperialism against the peoples, is the ultimate form of the oppressor-oppressed contradiction that we have witnessed throughout the history of class societies. Since the emergence of private property ownership, humanity has been experiencing the consequences of the social progress and development that is the product of this contradiction. Developing through horrible and inconceivable exploitation, humanity already has a tremendously advanced technology and shamefully miserable lives. Capitalism is the creator of this state of duality, which seems inconceivable to coexist. The more social it is, the more individualistic it is. The more liberating it is, the more imprisoning it is. The individualist and imprisoning character of capitalism is at the root of all the injustices and tyrannies that come to mind when we think of imperialism. There is now a great opportunity for the development of the anti-imperialist struggle. Not only have the failures of the system grown to a level that cannot be overcome, but the pain of the system has irrevocably raised the will of the peoples for liberation. Not only the peoples in the countries openly subjected to the tyranny of imperialism, but also the peoples in the imperialist countries are not hopeful about the future, in all countries the “old prosperity” is sought. In all countries, nationalism, which has turned into a tool of manipulation of fascism, has come to the fore as the only propaganda material of the rulers. The bourgeoisie’s slogan of “peace, human rights, justice for the whole world” is being replaced by “save yourself”. The “save yourself” nationalism embodied in Le Pen in France did not only fail to achieve a “victory” in the last election, that’s all; but it did lose power on its way to victory. It is obvious to what extent those who won the election relied on the French people and organized them. But the rulers of France are fully organized, the rulers of all countries are fully organized. A people that has become an organized force is dangerous for each of them. The fact that in all countries different degrees of progress have been made in dismantling the organized forces of the peoples points to the imminence of this danger.

We think it is necessary to be firm in linking the step taken by the Maoists to give clarity and momentum to the anti-imperialist struggle with this “danger”. In the specific case of our country, we have long been witnessing the serious erosion of the people’s own organizations in addition to the revolutionary organizations of the people. With the liquidation in various forms of the mass organizations built by the masses in line with their own needs, we see that today the masses have been driven into disorganization much more than yesterday. We know from historical experience that mass organizations are the product of the spontaneous movement of the masses, but they also acquire a political quality. It is also a reality that these qualities have developed over time, and even in very special periods these organizations have turned into serious resistance organizations and serious political movements. The claim that mass organizations can only have a structure limited to work in the economic and democratic sphere and that they can never go beyond this is a false claim that can be refuted by historical experience. On the contrary, unless there is outer intervention, mass organizations gradually gain political character and transform into a governing apparatus. We know this as a scientific thesis since Marx’s article “The Past, Present and Future of Trade Unions ”.

However, this knowledge is very general and must always be evaluated, analyzed and developed in concrete processes. The view that mass organizations will acquire a political character and in the course of time will transform into administrative apparatuses is undoubtedly a view that is linked to the developing social struggle of the working class. If the working class movement cannot follow a developing path within the class struggle, if the bourgeoisie follows a line that consolidates its superiority both by manipulating the masses and by suppressing and crushing the working class movement, the mass organizations will face disintegration and decay over time, abandoning its political character and turning into a governing apparatus. Isn’t it rather this disintegration and decay that we are witnessing in the process we are going through? Undoubtedly it is. The conditions in which this can be relatively overcome are the conditions in which revolutionary movements develop. It is known that in places where the working class and mass movement can be led by communists, the mass organizations have developed in all respects. Of course, this is not something that only communists have achieved; we are talking about a development that every revolutionary movement, national or social, every political line that paves the way for work based on the interests of the people has achieved and can achieve. The reason why we say “especially communists” is because, as we have emphasized from the very beginning, communists have a consistent line. From the very beginning, the communists are the only groups with a consistent line in the anti-imperialist struggle. This is a consistency that comes from their anti-feudal, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist stance. The fact that the interests of the masses are irreconcilable with the dominant systems and currents is also compatible with these characteristics.

Recognizing and acting to realize the interests of the people ultimately requires being anti-feudal, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist. Communists, if they act in accordance with their principles, organize to realize the interests of the people.

In this respect, it is especially important to understand the anti-imperialist struggle and organization as processes that communists can lead. This should not be interpreted as the communists imposing their leadership on the masses. On the contrary, this definition of leadership contains objectivity. Where there is an imposition, communists move away from their principles and break away from the mass line. Just as when we say that the anti-imperialist struggle is fully compatible with the interests of the masses, we are not talking about imposing this struggle on the masses, when we talk about the duty of communists to lead this struggle, we are not talking about an imposition. The problem here is the correct definition and realization of the anti-imperialist struggle. We know that almost every movement that concretely realizes this struggle, albeit in fragmented or inconsistent forms, finds a response in the masses. It cannot be said that these are also an imposition. They are the result of the harmonization of the just and real struggle with the interests of the masses. As long as the masses meet with a movement that can realize their feelings, hopes and expectations.

We have seen a form of this in the “support for the Palestinian resistance” actions all over the world against the massacres in Palestine. A very large mass of people have spontaneously resisted against the imperialist policies embodied in Israel’s aggression. The disorganization and systemlessness of these actions and organizations in support of this resistance, the fact that they will not exist tomorrow did not prevent participation. Now everyone is aware that both the aggression against Palestine, which stems from imperialist policies, and the resistance against it continue. Even the fact that this aggression and resistance is spreading to the region is obvious. Who can deny that the anti-imperialist struggle has an objective reality in the region for this reason alone? If this is so, wouldn’t it be a great weakness to define this struggle in a disorganized, unsystematic and tomorrow non-existent way?

Precisely because this is the case, we must insistently talk about a “consistent anti-imperialist line.” We must argue that this line both exists and must be organized.

In explaining the importance of mass organizations in revolutionary processes, communists have also talked about the realization of this consistent line. Both Marx’s article, Lenin’s famous theses on the subject, and Mao Tse-tung’s understanding of the mass line include this approach. When we examine the theses of the communist masters on the subject, we see that they define the line to lead, the path to follow, and explain it as realizing the interests of the masses. It is unique to communists that they reveal the dialectical development of the movement of the masses with a materialist approach and synthesize this with an understanding of leadership.

Understanding and developing the anti-imperialist struggle within the scope of the anti-feudal, anti-fascist and anti-capitalist struggle requires being able to be in the existing mass organizations and, more generally, in all mass movements that aim to realize the interests of the masses. It is one of the main features of our struggle and organization to cling tightly to the tasks that emerge here; to pay close attention to all problems in the fields of youth, women, environment, culture, art and to pay special attention to specialization in these fields. We must know that being a cadre of the revolution means being equipped to understand, grasp and realize the interests of the masses. If we lack these things, we can neither be cadres nor real porters of the revolution!

The Principles in the Character of All Big Organizations are Guiding

After explaining the importance of the struggle for democracy, we published the ideological and political position of AIL, which presents a strong will for the anti-imperialist struggle. There should be no need to repeat the importance of these statements and positions in the history of the proletarian revolutions. It is impossible to move forward in a real sense without understanding both the struggle for democracy and its inextricable link with the struggle against imperialism. Of course, theoretically and politically, there are many aspects of this that are open to discussion. However, this discussion begins with a presupposition: The struggle for democracy is ultimately against imperialism!

By asserting that imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, is completely reactionary, Lenin also showed us the way to think correctly about all existing reaction. His view is generally accepted and there is general agreement that there is nothing to defend about imperialism. But can this be considered a reality, an unquestionable consciousness? It is impossible to answer this question positively. First of all, the existence of different classes does not allow this. As long as there are different classes, there will be different interests and different policies and therefore different theories. For example, we know that while accepting that imperialism is reactionary, it is pointed out that it also has progressive, developing features, or despite this acceptance, we often witness tendencies to ally with it “against the reactionary Left from the Middle Ages”. It is precisely for this reason that the struggle for the liquidation of feudal remainings in Turkey, due to their incompatibility with imperialism, is often sought to be carried out with “Western support”. To understand the strength of these understandings, it will be enough to look at the history of the struggle for democracy in Turkey. The tendency of the weak bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie to take European democracy as an example, to seek support from European states against state oppression, repression or social reaction has always been noticeably strong in this history.

It is really sad that the forces in favor of the struggle for democracy against this system are looking to European democracy for help when the system, which consists of a rotten structure, would collapse if it were deprived of “Western support”. It is sad, but it is also a class reality. The state of hoping for help comes from weakness, from being inadequate, from historically losing the ability to represent the “new”. The struggle for democracy requires the people to be convinced, to respond to calls for democracy, and the historical reality we have mentioned is an obstacle to this. Convincing the people of a real struggle for democracy ultimately depends on a strong representation of the new. Otherwise the people will continue to look for a way within the existing.

There is a direct relationship between representing the new in the struggle for democracy and opposition to imperialism. Unless the ties with imperialism, which is the source and support of all reaction, are cut, it is not possible to represent the new.

We draw special attention to the fact that this is a class problem. This is the view put forward by the AIL, whose content and goals have been explained and called for to be built:

“The political line of the AIL emphasizes the need for a coherent anti-imperialist structure and stresses the necessity of an anti-imperialist line shaped by the scientific world view of the proletariat. It will therefore be part of the revolutionary transformation, taking an active and decisive role in the struggle against the imperialist system that prevails worldwide.”

The strength of this claim lies in its class approach. The “need for a coherent anti-imperialist structure” is related to the above-mentioned relationship. Our knowledge of imperialism and our attitude towards it cannot be explained only by our intentions. There is a class essence underlying our stance against imperialism and this essence will determine the final state of our movement. Therefore, we cannot attempt to create a coherent movement without evaluating the relation of our knowledge and attitude to the class essence.

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF UNITY IS CLEAR

The position taken by the Anti-Imperialist League on this issue needs to be discussed and more importantly understood. Because putting forward certain principles and excluding from the “front” those who do not comply with them or who are not sufficiently compatible with them points to a problem. When we say problem, we emphasize the lack of a solution. The fact that the Anti-Imperialist League is “limited by principles” even though there is a broad understanding of the front, suggests that there is a problem in this respect. It would be useful to discuss and explain this “problem” since it is a “front-understanding” linked to the struggle for democracy. Is the leadership mission based on a “narrow” team and the responsibility for the creation of a revolutionary struggle, a revolutionary movement that unites the broadest sections of the people opposite to each other? What is the link between these seemingly mutually exclusive phenomena that strengthens each other and makes one inevitable?

ORGANIZING THE REVOLUTIONARY IDEA

This is what we think needs to be discussed also for the Anti-Imperialist League. The League talks about the internationalism of the proletariat as a necessary condition for being in a consistent anti-imperialist line. Since it is claimed that a consistent anti-imperialist movement can be developed only when one is in this perspective, are we to say that the League considers those who are not in the proletarian perspective as outside of itself? Since what we will pay attention to when determining the principles is “to bring the broadest sections of the people together in the revolutionary ranks”, doesn’t establishing a consistent anti-imperialist line mean that a serious distance is created between us and the broad sections of the people at the very beginning?

This problem applies to all revolutionary ideas, even correct ideas. The time for a correct idea to meet the masses is not only when the masses are ready for that idea, but also when the concrete/material conditions have matured, such as when the old idea has outlived its time. Socialism could not have become “ready” separately from the working class, which became subjective on the stage of history by positioning itself as a class. The process of transition from utopian socialism to scientific socialism is related to the obsolescence of the old idea, i.e. the bourgeoisie belonging to an obsolete world vis-à-vis the working class. Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy, Capital” analyzes the obsolete world of the bourgeoisie and exposes the new idea within it. He explains this action in these very famous words: “What I have just done is this: 1) to prove that the existence of classes depends only on certain historical stages in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself constitutes the abolition of all classes and the transition to a classless society.” (Letter from Marx to J. Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852)

The reason for his very modest attitude in these words must be that Marx knew that the idea he was putting forward was based on objectivity. It is objective knowledge that production is subject to certain historical phases, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, and that this dictatorship constitutes the transition to a classless society. Marx himself states that he is doing a new thing, which consists in proving “reality and what will happen”. Thus, by explaining that classes, class struggle and classless society are the product of the productive movement of the masses, Marx revealed what is and will be realized in the masses independently of his own consciousness. However, his scientific idea, like any true idea, did not find a response in the masses immediately or in a short period of time. Irrespective of Marx’s expectations, this was due to the fact that the masses were still in the old world. Marx, of course, did not expect an applause from the masses or a direct attack on his idea. What he expected was a discussion of this idea among the revolutionary vanguard, among the leaders of the working class, among those associated with science. We know that even this took some time.

To summarize, what we are arguing from the emergence and first effects of Marx’s great idea is the characteristics of the possibility of the right idea meeting the masses. When a correct idea is put forward, to hope that it will immediately meet the masses is, at best, an innocent enthusiasm for the correct idea. Otherwise it is wishful thinking. It is normal and even inevitable that the first step taken by the Anti-Imperialist League towards representing anti-imperialism and spreading it to the broadest masses will go through a process similar to the above. The problem for us is to organize the ideas put forward here, that is, to reveal the possibilities and create the means for them to meet the masses.

UNITY AND PRINCIPLES

So we can return to our first question. Do the principles include the exclusion of large sections of the population? From a shallow point of view, the answer would be “yes”. But if we dig a little deeper, we advance our thinking in the opposite direction. The Anti-Imperialist League tells us that consistent anti-imperialism requires a proletarian perspective. We can prove this to be true from the objective situation of the class struggle. Imperialism is a period inherent to capitalism. Imperialism, which contains in itself the relations of production of capitalism, can only be fully defeated by the proletariat, the gravedigger of capitalism. All other classes of the imperialist period, while contradicting imperialism, cannot be hostile to it in such a way as to become its gravedigger. Their enmity is open to defeat because they can never be stronger than it. When we say defeat, it should be known that we are not talking about disappearing, being eaten. Defeat here consists only in not being defeated. Although classes maintain their existence to a certain extent, under imperialism they remain under the hegemony of the monopoly bourgeoisie, they cannot overcome it. Because under capitalism the most powerful and competent class is the monopoly bourgeoisie. All other bourgeois classes of all kinds find the possibility to live only when they harmonize with it, when they pay allegiance to it, what, it should be noted, the monopoly bourgeoisie also needs. This most reactionary and dominationist class in the history of capitalism can strengthen its networks within the imperialist system it has built through these classes.

The only class that can completely shatter these networks is the proletariat. Because the proletariat is the real producer of the system, the entire capitalist world built by labor is again so helpless that it will crumble under the sledgehammer of labor. Chairman Mao’s description of the “paper tiger” is apt in understanding this characteristic. By possessing all the means and power of the capitalist world built by labor, the monopoly bourgeoisie appears as an omnipotent tiger; but it is also a helpless tiger in the face of the huge sledgehammer of labor that will shatter this whole world!

This is the real situation that teaches us that it is only the proletariat that is capable of combat imperialism to the end and that it is only the proletariat that has the ability to build an alternative system. Therefore, a proletarian perspective is a must for the success of the anti-imperialist movement.

With this statement we are only asserting this: The anti-imperialist struggle must ultimately be proletarian in character. This does not mean that anti-imperialism is only a characteristic of the proletarian movement. Absolutely not. Under the hegemony of the monopoly bourgeoisie all other classes are oppressed to varying degrees and therefore they, too, have interests in anti-imperialism. The struggle does not and cannot close its eyes to these interests. We must point out that this is a particularly objective fact. The proletarian movement is destined to realize the interests of other classes, whether it wants to or not. This is due to nothing else than the fact that it has to fight imperialism. It is inevitable that the classes which endure the vile attacks, hypocrisy, reactionary domination and infinite selfishness of the monopoly bourgeoisie because they are powerless and have no possibility of realizing their own interests will show different degrees of interest and sympathy for the struggle of the proletariat, which must be anti-imperialist. Since the imperialist system continues to exist by constantly taking what they have, their opposition to imperialism is inevitable. This inevitability includes the possibility of “uniting” with the consistent anti-imperialist struggle. This is where the possibility for the leadership mission of the proletariat to unite with “the broadest sections of the people” comes from. Therefore, we should not worry that being consistently anti-imperialist as a fundamental characteristic of the Anti-Imperialist League will narrow it. The possibility of narrowing cannot arise from this principle. This possibility can be embodied in the inability to act assertively, persistently, and as broadly as possible while pursuing a consistent anti-imperialist line. If our interest in environmental problems is limited, if we have a crude attitude towards the women’s question, if we understand the struggle for democracy separately from the will and interests of the people, our anti-imperialist struggle will undoubtedly narrow, it will not be able to meet broad sections of the people.

Another example can be given through the principle of “defending the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”. The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, as it is well known, involves communists defending the right of oppressed nations in all countries to establish their own States. Let us remind that this is not the understanding that “every nation should have a State”, and that in this respect the characterization of communists as “nation-statists” is a kind of attack, if not an absurdity. It should be known that the principle of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination is limited to the view that it is only the choice of the nation without a State to establish a State, and that no one else can have a “say” in this matter. Therefore, communists do not unconditionally and absolutely support the statehood of every oppressed nation, but they unconditionally and absolutely support the right of any oppressed nation to have this right. Defending the right of every oppressed nation to statehood is clearly within the “limits of democracy” and is necessary for a democratic movement. Imperialism has violated this democratic right from the very beginning and can never give it up. This is because the national State rejects the interests of imperialism to a considerable extent. Imperialism creates dependent nations, dependent States; it finds in such States the possibility of realizing its interests. Colonization or semi-colonization is the inevitable tendency of imperialism. The process we are going through is a process in which this is once again being strongly proven. The States, burdened by huge debts, have carried the system to this day with money that the real economy cannot handle.

The system has been bankrupt for some time. Nevertheless, it is ensured that the rotten structure is kept alive and continues to exist through dependent States. The intensity and endlessness of today’s regional wars, persistent inflation, increasing and today also expanding taxation are all part of this. It is clear that these are not independent from imperialism and the bankrupt system of the monopoly bourgeoisie. From this point of view, we must absolutely assert and defend the Right of Nations to Self-Determination as a principle for the anti-imperialist struggle. Our consciousness must be clear on this issue.

But doesn’t this narrow the anti-imperialist struggle? If you impose this principle as a condition on the program of every democratic mass organization that is a candidate to be part of the Anti-Imperialist League, of course it will narrow it. Every democratic mass organization sets principles and creates a program in its own field and in terms of its own nature. The fact that the Anti-Imperialist League emphasizes this principle in its program comes from the fact that it is oriented towards a broad perspective field of struggle and of course has the goal of waging a consistent struggle for democracy. Because its “anti-imperialist political line is mobilizing for a consistent struggle against imperialism.” This line has a direct link with the principle in question, especially since it is a line that “represents the just and legitimate demands of workers, toilers, poor and landless peasants, oppressed peoples and nations around the world”. An anti-imperialist struggle that is even partially distanced from the Right to Self-Determination, which is among the just and legitimate demands, cannot be reassuring, nor can it be consistent.

Based on all this, it must be reiterated once again that “In our age, the anti-imperialist struggle is also closely linked to the democratic struggle. On a world scale, the principles and values of democracy have decayed in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and the struggle for democracy and consistent democratism have achieved a unity that is united with the anti-imperialist character. This means that the values, principles and political line of proletarian democracy with its consistent anti-imperialist character are more and more integrated with the oppressed peoples.”

As a result, “the fact that the anti-imperialism understanding and anti-imperialist struggles of the classes and sections outside the proletariat, their anger and resistance against imperialism are limited and contain inconsistencies” cannot be seen as an obstacle to the relations we have established and will establish with them. What we are obliged to do in this situation is to realize the mission of leadership in overcoming these inconsistencies. It is certain that this is possible “in parallel with the effectiveness of the proletariat’s world view in this struggle” as emphasized in the program.

Source of information: https://www.yenidemokrasi34.net/