It is not every day that a new force of the working class appaers on the international arena but in 2006 we were contacted by the comrades of the Enternasyonalist Kommunist Sol of Turkey. We had then intended to publish their leaflet on May day and their declaration of principles but lack of space at that point prevented us. The leaflet and other documents have since been re-published by World Revolution. ⁽¹⁾ Since then the comrades sent us their documents on the Lebanon war one of which we publish here. We totally share the intention of this leaflet to underline the message that the workers have no nation and that they cannot identify one fraction of the bourgeoisie as “progressive” against any other fraction. The leaflet though did lead us to a brief exchange on the question of imperialism which we are publishing here as a contribution to clarification of the position of both organisations. We hope to begin discussion with the comrades about the nature of communist intervention in the workplace. The fact that they are already working in this direction demonstrates to us that they are a serious addition to the communist left.

On the Situation in Lebanon and Palestine

EKS Leaflet

On July 12, right after the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah, Israeli president Ehud Olmert promised Lebanon a “very painful and far-reaching response”. During the early hours of July 13th, the State of Israel started an invasion and pushed its working class into another nationalist and imperialist war. The Israeli State started this invasion for its own interests and without caring about the blood that would be shed. In fifteen days, about four hundred Lebanese civilians lost their lives. Not even the current ceasefire guarantees that the massacres won’t start again as the Israeli State showed that it would destroy anything threatening its own interests not only with the last conflict but with the outgoing torture of the Palestinians.

Yet, it should not be forgotten that Israel is not the only responsible side in this conflict. Both Hezbollah, which is attracting the attention of the world nowadays with the fight they gave to the Israelis with a violence that could match their own, and the PLO and Hamas who have been carrying out a nationalist war in Palestine for years can’t be considered “clean”. Hezbollah, which was the excuse Israel showed the world before the beginning of the conflict, killed Israeli civilians with rockets provided by Syria and Iran throughout the war. Hezbollah is a anti-Semitic and religious fundamentalist organization. Most importantly, contrary to what some think, Hezbollah did not fight to protect the Lebanese, instead Hezbollah forced the Lebanese working class to join a nationalist front for its own interests, and it struggled only for the territories they controlled and the authority they had. The PLO which pushed the Palestinian workers from class struggle into the claws of their national bourgeoisie and Hamas which is an organization that is as reactionary, violent, anti-Semitic and religiously fundamentalist as Hezbollah also act only for their own interests.

At this point, it is necessary to briefly describe imperialism. Contrary to what most people think, imperialism is not a policy strong nation states practice in order to take over weak nation states resources, instead it is the policy of a nation state or an organization that functions as a nation state that controls a certain territory, resources on that territory and authority over the population in that territory. To phrase it simply, imperialism is the natural policy any nation state or organization that functions as a nation state practices. As we have seen in the last conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, in some situations nation states or organizations functioning as nation states have clashing interests, and this clash finally reaches the point of an inter-imperialist war.

As the situation is like this, what leftists in Turkey and the World become even more ridiculous and inconsistent. Both in Turkey and the world, a great majority of leftists have gave full support to PLO and Hamas. In the last conflict they become one voice and said “We are all Hezbollah”, by following the logic of saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, they fully embraced this violent organization which pushed its working class into a disastrous nationalist war. The support leftists gave to nationalism shows us why leftists don’t have much to say that is different from what parties like MHP (Nationalist Movement Party - Greywolves) not only on Hezbollah, PLO and Hamas, but on many other subjects. Especially in Turkey, leftists don’t have an idea on what they are talking about.

Both the war between Hezbollah and Israel and the war in Palestine are inter-imperialist wars and all sides use nationalism to draw workers in their territories to their sides. The more workers get sucked up in to nationalism, the more they will lose the ability to act as a class. This is why neither Israel, nor Hezbollah, PLO or Hamas should not be supported under any circumstances. What should be supported during this conflict is the workers struggle to survive, not nationalist organizations or states who are getting them killed. Yet more importantly, what should be done in Turkey is to work for class consciousness and class struggle that will develop here. Imperialism and capitalism binds all countries together, this is why national independence is impossible. Only workers struggle for their own needs can provide an answer.

For Internationalism and Workers Struggle!

Correspondence with the Enternasyonalist Komunist Sol

From the EKS

Dear Comrades,

First of all, thank you very much for writing to us. Especially as a small and new group, being in touch with the international communist left is something we really regard as very important to our clarification as a group.

We wholeheartedly agree with you on your emphasis about theory and practice. This is why we think your practice in the factories is indeed a very positive thing, and a step forward. We will start publishing a monthly workers bulletin this month about the class struggles in Turkey. As a small group, with students as the most active militants, we think this will indeed be a positive thing for the future.

About the theoretical debate on imperialism, we think that the most important aspect we should emphasize is the practical rejection of nationalism in whatever form it takes, which we agree on. Theory is of course very important, but we think that it is the basic principles that matter the most, and it is the basic principles that draw the border lines of the communist left. Besides it is also important to note we too are still debating on the issue of imperialism within the group for more clarification.

This said, we think it is also necessary to explain the description we used in our leaflet further detail. It is indeed very true that imperialist imperatives cannot be changed, and perhaps “policy” might not be the best word (or the best translation as a matter of fact) we could have used. Policy seemed like the best word, but what we are actually saying, is that imperialism is capitalism, in a sense. After all, the economical infrastructure of the society determines every aspects of the socio-political superstructure of the ruling class. In that sense “policy” sounds right, but it is not a changeable policy, it is the nature of the socio-political superstructure of the ruling class, and every nation state, and even proto-states are imperialistic by their nature because their the economical infrastructure they have is capitalism. This is why we call it the “natural policy” instead of just calling it a policy.

Unless the implications of calling imperialism a “stage” of capitalism get to a point where ‘oppressed nations’ that had not reached to that stage are supported against nations that are experiencing the imperialist ‘stage’ (this was unfortunately what Lenin did), we think it is just a semantic issue. After all, after saying that imperialism the “stage” capitalism is in, in the entire world or the “natural policy” of the capitalist superstructures, we don’t think there is a practical difference other than the way we express it.

Thanks again for your reply, we think it has been really good for us as a group. We hope we can remain in touch.

Communist greetings.

From the IBRP

Dear Comrades

Thanks for your email. Our apologies for not replying sooner. We too find it important to discuss with you as you bring new elements to the discussion which forces us to re-examine how we view the world. In fact with new elements the issue is how best to understand what they are trying to say (unlike with groups with which we have long history of debate).

On the question of imperialism as a policy we understand the translation problem because in English “policy” and “political framework” are two different ideas but in French and Italian (as well as other languages) they are represented by a single word. Possibly the same occurs in Turkish.

We also absolutely agree that we have to be careful that we are not using different words to describe the same things (this has often been the curse of real political exchanges on the communist left in the past). In fact the issue of semantics could even be extended to how we characterise ourselves. If we think that we are the only communists (as against the various distortions of proletarian revolution that have arisen on the back of the counter-revolution such as Trotskyism, Maoism and Stalinism), then why still refer to ourselves as “left” just because that is what these counter-revolutionaries call us? We only give this as one example of the difficulties of semantics!

Here you will need to tell us more about your separation between principles and theory since for us the two are intertwined. Principles arise from the reflection on the past practice of the workers’ movement and as such they cannot avoid being part of a theoretical process however materially based.

However to return to the question of imperialism itself. Lets start with your sentence “the most important aspect we should emphasize is the practical rejection of nationalism”. We agree that the first duty of revolutionaries in the imperialist phase is to alert workers to the fact that the enemy is in your own country. This is particularly true in Third World countries, especially in Latin America (see Revolutionary Perspectives 39 and 40), where the “anti-imperialists” are in fact nationalists because they do not have a clear understanding of imperialism which they identify only with “Yanqui imperialism”. If you then point out to them that the ruling class in every Latin American country is part of the imperialist exploitation of the workers of that country they reply that is because the elite is a “vendepatria” ruling class (Literally those who have sold out the “fatherland”). In short this is the nationalist ideology of leftist social democrats all in the name of being against imperialism. Thus we feel that we need to have deeper understanding of imperialism which goes beyond the whole idea of “policy” whether this means the whole framework of imperial rule or any policy of any individual state. In your last message you seemed to imply that you saw imperialism as a political superstructure arising out of a capitalist economic “infrastructure”. Correct us here if we are mistaken since we hold that what you say earlier that “imperialism is capitalism” is absolutely correct - for the present day - but this does not mean a separation between an economic base of capitalism and a political superstructure of imperialism. What we maintain, is that imperialism is the stage which capitalism has reached arising from the very laws of capitalist accumulation themselves. The process of accumulation is one of concentration and centralisation of capital but at a certain point (and in historical terms this was at the end of the nineteenth century) this leads to monopoly. Monopoly conditions leads to the distortion of the law of value in such a way that the monopolists are able to dominate the world market by selling cheaper than their rivals but above value. Nation states are obliged to defend themselves from the depredations of other monopolies by supporting their own monopolies (it was because of this point that the CWO used to think imperialism could be reduced to a question of policy). Tariff barriers and colonial expansion to get hands on raw materials (i.e. to help reduce the cost of constant capital) were the state responses. At the same time monopoly also provoked the state internally to regulate and control economic activity within its own territory (even to the point of nationalisation of the means of production in key strategic industries). Monopoly state capitalism and overseas aggression are all part of the imperialist framework. And this was not a stage which each state could choose to go through at its own speed of development (here we wholeheartedly agree with you that the idea of “oppressed nations” is a mechanical view of capitalist development which was unfortunately very widespread in social democracy and which Lenin was not immune from). It was the law of accumulation operating on a global scale. Obviously all those states which had the economic power to do so could defend their capital whilst others had to manoeuvre around the conditions that the dominant imperialist states created in the world economy. It means that no state can escape the imperialist imperative however weak they are. For us there is a hierarchy of imperialist states and the position a state occupies in it is largely (although not totally) determined by the mass of capital it controls. Linking imperialism to the accumulation process also helps to explain why the imperialist epoch has been characterised by wars which only end with the total annihilation of the enemy in contrast to the nineteenth century wars which were often decided after a single encounter. Imperialist war is intended to destroy the value of the enemy’s capital whilst preserving your own. The net result of such wars is the massive destruction of capital and the devaluation of capital in general. This allows for a new round of accumulation to proceed. Imperialist war thus replaces the purely economic crisis of the period in which capitalist was in the ascendant as a mode of production. The misery inflicted upon humanity by capitalism in its imperialist stage is why we say that the system is no longer compatible with the future of humanity. Imperialism is the era of “the decay and parasitism of capital” that Lenin identified (even if the motive forces of imperialism are different today from those which Lenin identified in 1916) and it is this understanding that frames our revolutionary perspective today.

These remarks are obviously very schematic (based on what we have written in Internationalist Communist over the years) but hopefully you will find them provocative enough to give you something to respond to.

Internationalist greetings.

From the EK

Dear Comrades,

Thank you very much for your e-mail on the 12th of December.

What we meant when we said “policy” was exactly “political framework”, and it is represented by the same word as “policy” in Turkish. We absolutely agree with you on overcoming semantic problems and focusing on what’s behind.

We don’t separate theory from communist principles. Of course the two are intertwined. We absolutely agree that the principles arise from the reflection on the past practice of the workers’ movement and as such they cannot avoid being part of a theoretical process however materially based. Yet while saying that, we also held on to Lenin’s very meaningful paraphrase of Goethe, “The tree of theory is gray always, while the tree of life is green”. Theory is very important, and we constantly discuss theory, but its practical value for revolutionaries is being able to draw the communist principles from it. This is why we regard principles as the more important than theory, and after all we can talk to groups that have different theories but agree with communist principles, we can even have members who have different theories but agree on the communist principles, yet we can’t, as an organization, ever work with anyone or any group which doesn’t upheld communist principles. Also it should be noted that theory should never become dogmatic in an organization, as it can never develop if it becomes dogmatic.

Back to the topic of imperialism, we still don’t really see a disagreement with you on the subject and in fact are a little surprised to see that you continue to do so. First of all, we are glad that you agree with us on the fact that most important aspect of actual anti-imperialism is the rejection of all kinds of nationalism. As for us saying that imperialism is the natural political superstructure arising out of a capitalist economic “infrastructure”, we don’t see how this means a separation of between an economic base of capitalism and a political superstructure of imperialism, as what we say directly depends on what Marx’s concept of “economical determinism”, and the critique of political economy, which ultimately binds economical infrastructure and socio-political superstructure together. So what we stress is, far from being a separation between an economic base of capitalism and a political superstructure of imperialism, indeed the connection and unity between the two, and in that sense it enables us to state that imperialism is capitalism.

On the question of imperialism being a “stage” or “natural political framework”, this still seems like more of a semantic argument. First of all, the two definitions don’t even actually contradict, unless we say the political framework can be changed or there are some states that aren’t in the “imperialist stage”. We agree with your economical analysis on the developments in the area where Lenin identified imperialism. However, you do also rightfully add that the “motive forces of imperialism are different today from those which Lenin identified in 1916”. Initially, this shows an understanding of the fact that imperialism also changed with the changes experienced by the capitalist system itself. Also, when you say “For us their is a hierarchy of imperialist states and the position a state occupies in it is largely (although not totally) determined by the mass of capital it controls”, we again don’t see any disagreement at all with your criticism on our analysis of saying that it’s about labor and resources (raw materials and means of production) as the mass capital comes from the cycle where the capitalist invests on variable capital (hired labour power) and constant capital (raw materials and means of production), appropriates surplus-value as profit income after deduction of costs, and initially reinvests profit income in production. This cycle initially accumulates capital which ends up in the creation of mass capital.

There are many aspects of your letter which we think worth discussing in our meetings, this will also help our theoretical clarification. Thanks again for your letter, we hope to develop our correspondence with you,

Communist greetings.

From the IBRP

Dear Comrades

Thanks for your letter of December 16th. we apologise for the lack of response until now but there has been an unusual amount of correspondence to discuss (normally at this time of year things are very quiet, at least on the European front).

First, we don’t see this correspondence as being about agreements or disagreements but a mutual exploration of what we understand by imperialism. What we did was lay out (even if in a brief schematic way) the overall view we have of imperialism so that you could see what you could and could not identify with. We are glad that you find so much of it agrees with what you are trying to express. We have to confess that we are not sure what you are arguing at the end of the paragraph on the economics of imperialism but this can be left for a further occasion. Indeed as you expressed no disagreements with our position there is little further we can do to add to this discussion.

We also agree with you on the quotation from Lenin. “Theory is grey, my friend, but green is the everlasting tree of life” was another version he wrote and we quote it amongst ourselves a lot. All the theoretical work we do has to be geared to arming ourselves for the demands which the future struggles of the working class. As Lenin also said “There can be no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory” and theory means, as you clearly and correctly understand, a continuous response to the developments in both capitalist developments and in the activity of the working class as a whole. In this spirit we wish you every success with your work of developing a revolutionary praxis in the Turkish and international milieu and an especially fruitful year in 2007.

Internationalist greetings.

(1) British section of the International Communist Current. Write to BM Box 869, London WC 1 N 3 XX.