The National Question in the Comintern’s First Four Congresses

At the Comintern congresses and debates of Lenin’s era, a general approach to the liberation of oppressed nations and colonies was put forward. However, no sufficient clarity was provided regarding the path and methods to be followed by the proletarian struggles in countries that had emerged from colonialism, established nation-states, achieved political independence, but remained financially dependent on imperialism and were at a low or medium level of capitalist development. Various issues, such as what was meant by “oppressed nation”, the difference between this concept and that of “dependent country”, and similar questions, remained unresolved without sufficiently analytical explanations. Such shortcomings, combined with the distortions introduced into theory by Stalinism in the following years, created significant gaps that made it difficult to adopt the correct attitude on these issues.

The early period of the Comintern encompasses the years when numerous difficulties and colossal problems accumulated. The founding of the Third International took place under conditions where the Bolsheviks were grappling with civil war after the October Revolution, the revolution had not succeeded in Europe, there was insufficient preliminary preparation before its establishment, a program for the progress of the world revolution had not yet been designed, centrist political views in Europe had infiltrated the Comintern parties, and Asian petty-bourgeois nationalism presented itself to the working masses as “communist”. To such a cluster of problems, we can also add effectual factors such as Lenin’s illness, the loss of revolutionary Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky grappling with the problems of the civil war at the head of the Red Army, and the beginning of the maneuvers of Stalin, who seized the reins within the Bolshevik Party. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why, despite their great importance, the analyses from the first four congresses of the Comintern contain deficiencies and gaps that need to be reflected upon today.

This reality places before us the task of interpreting the documents and resolutions of that period very carefully and cautiously. If these are taken as completed, clarified resolutions on every matter, no other result can be obtained than surrendering to the deficiencies of that period. However, if a general assessment is to be made, we must clearly state that the congress resolutions of the Comintern during the Lenin and Trotsky era carried a revolutionary Marxist essence. We must certainly own this historical heritage, but by grasping its Marxist essence and knowing that there are aspects that need to be criticized and developed! In our opinion, the correct and useful approach is to find the solid links of thought that are included in the analyses of the first four congresses, that have passed the test of history, and whose consistency has been proven, and to try to complete the chain of thought by adding them together.

First Congress of the Communist International (March 1919)

The Manifesto of the Communist International, adopted at the First Congress of the Comintern, holds historical significance even today. The representatives of the world’s revolutionary proletariat who adopted this manifesto stated that they saw themselves as followers and executors of the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels. The dominant understanding in the Comintern manifesto was to achieve the unity of workers of all countries and to escalate the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this document, the liberation of oppressed nations and colonies was also addressed in the context of the progress of the proletarian revolution in Europe.

The First Congress did not make the national liberation struggles and the colonial question in Asia a separate agenda item. These issues were touched upon in the Manifesto, and in a manner consistent with the document’s historical nature, emphasis was placed on definitive solutions. In such a period, when there was hope for the progress of the world revolution in Europe, the national liberation struggles in Asian countries or the colonial question in particular were handled within the scope of problems that the proletarian revolution would solve in passing. The assertion that the right to self-determination could only be achieved in its most comprehensive form in conjunction with the revolutionary proletariat’s struggle for power was also a significant response to bourgeois distortions on this issue. The great deception of the allied imperialist powers, who on the one hand continued their aggression against oppressed nations while on the other constantly speaking of the “right to self-determination of nations”, was also exposed. The Comintern was showing the working masses of the oppressed nations the path to genuine liberation, that is, social liberation, rather than a national liberation goal limited to gaining political independence:

“Only the proletarian revolution can secure the existence of the small nations, a revolution which frees the productive forces of all countries from the restrictions of the national states, which unites all peoples in the closest economic cooperation on the basis of a universal economic plan, and makes the smallest and weakest peoples able freely and independently to carry on their national culture without detriment to the united and centralized economy of Europe and of the whole world.”[1]

The imperialist war had accelerated the awakening in the colonial countries, and outright uprisings and revolutionary fermentations were now being seen in the colonies. Thus, the colonial question had come onto the agenda not only at the tables of diplomatic congresses in Paris, but in the colonies themselves. Moreover, putting aside the very backward colonies where the proletariat was still of little consequence, the struggle in the more developed colonies was not being waged solely under the banner of national liberation but was gradually acquiring a social character. In the context of social liberation, it was very clear that the liberation of the colonial peoples was only possible together with the liberation of the working class of the metropolises. The First Congress of the Comintern was addressing the working masses in the colonial countries with these historical words:

“If capitalist Europe forcibly dragged the backward sections of the world into the capitalist whirlpool, then socialist Europe will come to the aid of liberated colonies with its technology, its organization, its spiritual forces, in order to facilitate their transition to a planned and organized socialist economy.

“Colonial slaves of Africa and Asia! The hour of proletarian dictatorship in Europe will also be the hour of your own liberation!”[2]

Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organisations of the Eastern Peoples (November 1919)

The workers’ power established by the Great October Revolution faced very serious threats. It was essential for the Soviet proletariat, fighting against imperialist governments mobilising their forces to destroy the Soviet Republic and against internal enemies such as Kolchak, Yudenich, and Denikin, to expand its alliances on a global scale. Under conditions where the European revolution had not yet come to the rescue, the need to win the support of the working masses of the East became urgent. On the other hand, the revolutionary movement of the peoples of the East against the imperialist-capitalist system could only develop and achieve success if it united with the revolutionary struggle of the Soviet Republic.

For this reason, Lenin gave special importance to the alliance to be established between the victorious Soviet proletariat and the revolutionary movement of the peoples of the East in the context of forming a revolutionary bloc on a world scale against the imperialist system. However, just as the alliance between workers and peasants within national borders can deliver a mortal blow to the capitalist order only under the hegemony of the proletariat, the same condition is valid for alliances to be formed on a world scale. Indeed, while making significant emphasis on the national liberation struggles in the colonial and semi-colonial countries of Asia, Lenin did not approach this issue in a way that was detached from the global advance or the tasks of the proletarian revolution. In his address on November 22, 1919, he was speaking to the communists of the peoples of the East with these words:

“The socialist revolution will not be solely, or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie – no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism. The party programme adopted by our party in March of this year defined the approach of the world social revolution in terms of the civil war of the working people against the imperialists and exploiters in all the advanced countries. And this has been borne out by the course of the revolution, and will be still further borne out. The same thing will happen in the East.”[3]

Lenin pointed out that the majority of the peoples of the East consisted of the working and exploited peasant masses who were victims of medieval oppression, and he advised them to follow the path of the Russian Revolution. Lenin was grounding the struggle that the awakening peoples of the East would wage against international imperialism –that is, anti-imperialism– on the basis of the leadership of the proletariat:

“The Russian revolution showed how the proletarians, after defeating capitalism and uniting with the vast diffuse mass of working peasants, rose up victoriously against medieval oppression. Our Soviet Republic must now muster all the awakening peoples of the East and, together with them, wage a struggle against international imperialism.”[4]

In his speech, Lenin emphasised that definitive victory could only be achieved on the basis of the struggle of the proletariat in all the advanced countries of the world. At the same time, he also pointed out that the goal could not be achieved by the efforts of the vanguard alone. In this context, the assistance of the working people of the Eastern nations was necessary. The conditions in which the Eastern peoples found themselves were still largely medieval. For this reason, Lenin addressed the tasks facing the communists of the Eastern peoples within the framework of these concrete conditions:

“You will have to base yourselves on the bourgeois nationalism which is awakening, and must awaken, among those peoples, and which has its historical justification. At the same time, you must find your way to the working and exploited masses of every country and tell them in a language they understand that their only hope of emancipation lies in the victory of the international revolution, and that the international proletariat is the only ally of all the hundreds of millions of the working and exploited peoples of the East.”[5]

Second Congress of the Comintern (July 1920)

The victory of the October Revolution had a very positive impact on the world proletariat. As a result, the Communist International was increasingly becoming a political centre of attraction. Centrist currents that had previously been part of the Second International, or new parties formed by adding a touch of communism to petty-bourgeois socialism, were turning towards joining the Comintern.

In order to ensure and strengthen the revolutionary unity of the proletariat’s international organisation, the congress established the conditions forjoining the Comintern. Twenty-one conditions were accepted in this context. These conditions are still of great importance today in that they provide a principled framework for the revolutionary organisation of the proletariat. For example, the eighth condition defines the attitude of communists against the danger of chauvinism that emerged in European countries following the collapse of the Second International:

“Parties in countries whose bourgeoisie possess colonies and oppress other nations must pursue a most well-defined and clear-cut policy in respect of colonies and oppressed nations. Any party wishing to join the Third International must ruthlessly expose the colonial machinations of the imperialists of its «own» country, must support –in deed, not merely in word­– every colonial liberation movement, demand the expulsion of its compatriot imperialists from the colonies, inculcate in the hearts of the workers of its own country an attitude of true brotherhood with the working population of the colonies and the oppressed nations, and conduct systematic agitation among the armed forces against all oppression of the colonial peoples.”[6]

At a turning point when hopes for the European revolution were gradually fading, the national question and the colonial question occupied a very important place in the discussions of the Second Congress. There were various reasons for this. First, national liberation movements were actually on the rise in the colonial countries. Second, due to the vast territory inherited from Tsarist Russia where oppressed nations lived, the Soviet Republic was obliged to offer solutions to the national question. Third, delegates from communist organisations established in Eastern countries inevitably brought the issues of their own countries to the Comintern agenda.

For all these reasons, the Second Congress placed on its agenda both the question of how to establish the connection between national liberation movements and the world revolution in general, and how to approach the independence struggles of oppressed nations in particular. Although there were significant insights in the discussions at the Second Congress, the perspectives on how these problems could be solved on the basis of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat could not be sufficiently clarified. However, the different approaches that emerged during the discussions provided illuminating clues for evaluating the experiences that took place over the following years.

In order to evaluate in broad outlines the discussions that took place at the Second Congress, let us take up the preliminary draft that Lenin prepared for the congress. In hisPreliminary Draft ofTheses on the National Question and the Colonial Question, Lenin presented his views in twelve theses for the delegates’ consideration. These theses, which contain the most important aspects of the problem under discussion, expose the false and hypocritical nature of bourgeois democracy, criticizing its abstract and formal understanding of “national equality”. Lenin’s theses demonstrate that the road to genuine national equality passes through the rule of the proletariat, and that the true liberation of the workers of colonial and oppressed nations is also dependent on this.

We can list some important points that stand out in Lenin’s preliminary draft. It was proposed that a policy of close cooperation with the Soviet government should be pursued for the success of the liberation movements of the colonies and oppressed nations. It was emphasised that only the Soviet system could ensure the unity of the struggle of all proletarians and the working masses against the bourgeoisie. The duty of communist parties to provide direct assistance to the revolutionary movements of oppressed nations and colonies was mentioned. Lenin warned against possible misconceptions in this regard and reminded that it is the fundamental duty of communists to defend the proletariat’s internationalist perspective against petty-bourgeois nationalist prejudices.

“The urgency of the struggle against this evil, against the most deep-rooted petty-bourgeois national prejudices, looms ever larger with the mounting exigency of the task of converting the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i.e., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) into an international one (i.e., a dictatorship of the proletariat involving at least several advanced countries, and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole).”[7]

Exposing petty-bourgeois nationalism, which does not take an attitude against national egoism, Lenin also reveals the two fundamental elements of proletarian internationalism:

“proletarian internationalism demands, first, that the interests of the proletarian struggle in any one country should be subordinated to the interests of that struggle on a world-wide scale, and, second, that a nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international capital.”[8]

The issue addressed by Lenin in his theses and which caused the main debates at the Second Congress was the “support for bourgeois democratic liberation movements” in colonial and semi-colonial countries. It would be extremely wrong to evaluate this thesis out of its historical context. In order to examine certain important issues related to this topic, such as the meaning of the differences in opinion between Lenin and Roy, it is necessary to clearly understand the historical framework and concrete conditions in which these theses were defended. Let us state from the outset that Lenin’s “support for bourgeois democratic movements” initiative was limited to specific historical conditions and should never be generalised beyond that. Indeed, the opening lines of Lenin’s thesis on this issue clearly set out the specific historical framework in question:

“With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind: first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on.”[9]

Secondly, another important point must be clarified. When Lenin speaks of “assisting the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement”, does he mean to frame the issue primarily in terms of assisting the bourgeoisie in the countries in question? Certainly not! It is well known from the debates that took place during the Russian revolution that Lenin’s concept of “bourgeois democratic” referred more to the broad peasant masses than to the bourgeoisie. Indeed, when Lenin speaks of assist in the context of national liberation movements, he emphasises the need to give a revolutionary character to the peasant movement in the backward countries:

“the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate – by setting up «working people’s Soviets», etc.”[10]

It is not enough to simply state that what was essentially meant by “assist for bourgeois-democratic movements” in backward countries was revolutionary peasant movements. Furthermore, one must be extremely vigilant against the blurring of the distinction between petty-bourgeois revolutionary movements and proletarian revolutionary movements. Expecting a disproportionate role from petty-bourgeois revolutionism brings about extremely negative results for the struggle of the proletariat. For this reason, even the most radical petty-bourgeois revolutionary movements can only serve a beneficial function as allies of the proletariat when the fact that they are not communist is taken into consideration.

In his theses, Lenin emphasises the necessity of a resolute struggle against the tendency to characterise bourgeois democratic liberation movements in backward countries as communist. More importantly, he links support for bourgeois democratic liberation movements to the condition that communists never subordinate the primary tasks of the proletarian struggle. Failing to fulfil this condition, contenting oneself with a mere “supporting” position, can lead to no other political outcome than tailing bourgeois or petty-bourgeois leaderships. Based on this, Lenin linked the issue of supporting bourgeois democratic liberation movements to a condition that the parties of the Third International must adhere to:

“The Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations.”[11]

This approach, which Lenin emphasised so strongly, must be taken as a basis in today’s discussions on support for national liberation struggles. And we must point out that, in conditions where the revolutionary movement of the working class is in decline, such fundamental principles can easily be forgotten, and opportunist tendencies can develop even among communists. We must never forget: Communists who prioritise the task of supporting this or that movement without fulfilling their primary duty –that is, without making the strengthening of their own independent organisation their top priority– demonstrate their allegiance not to a communist struggle but to some other struggle.

Such a political attitude means surrendering to other political currents from the very beginning and abandoning the task of creating a revolutionary organisation, which is the most fundamental requirement of the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle. The fate of organisations that believe they can strengthen themselves through various alliances without prioritising the preservation of their political independence is well known. Yes, this path can also serve a “cause”; this path can also add “strength” to something. But it is very clear that this path will neither serve the revolutionary cause of the proletariat nor strengthen communist organisation. Due to the possibility of such a danger, it must never be forgotten where Lenin placed the emphasis when he introduced concepts such as “support” or “alliance”:

“The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.”[12]

In order to adopt the correct attitude towards national liberation struggles, it is also important to clarify the class dynamics that influence these struggles in different ways. For example, colonial rule hinders the free development of economic forces in colonised countries. Therefore, it is not only the oppressed nation’s working class but also its bourgeoisie that generally desires the overthrow of this rule. Faced with this reality, Lenin felt the need to further clarify the nature of the support to be given to the struggle for the overthrow of foreign rule in the colonies. The aim of communists is not to support the nationalist movement of the local bourgeoisie. On the contrary, support for national liberation movements can have only one goal: to advance the revolution in colonial countries far beyond the demands of the local bourgeoisie and to pave the way for the proletariat and the oppressed masses. On the other hand, the achievement of political independence, which means a limited and bourgeois solution to the national question, will make it much clearer to the working masses that true liberation depends on social revolution.

As demonstrated by all national struggles led by the bourgeoisie, the colonial bourgeoisie, despite its contradictions with imperial countries, does everything it can to halt the masses’ struggle at the point of establishing a nation-state. Even the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation lacks the strength to carry out social transformations with a bourgeois-democratic content, such as an agrarian revolution. Indeed, Lenin drew attention to two increasingly divergent types of movements in oppressed nations. The first is the nationalist bourgeois-democratic movement, which aims only to achieve political independence and subsequently establish a bourgeois order. The second is the social liberation movement of the oppressed nation’s working and poor peasant masses, which seeks to be free from all forms of exploitation.

Although there were many discussions during the congress, the draft theses that Lenin submitted to the congress delegates for review determined the general direction of the congress decisions. In his report entitled “The International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International”, read at the congress on 19 July, Lenin stated that in economically backward countries (the majority of which were colonial countries), liberation from imperialist domination could only be achieved through organising a soviet movement. He viewed the liberation of the working masses in colonial countries not merely in terms of political independence (because this was the narrow perspective of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nationalists, limited to the establishment of a nation-state), but as the question of complete liberation, i.e., social revolution.

It is also important to understand the different tendencies that emerged within the commission that prepared the Second Congress’s report on the national question. These tendencies can be grouped into three main categories. The first was the tendency symbolised by the Italian Serrati, which the congress rejected as being overly European-oriented. The second tendency was expressed by the Indian Roy and contained very important political approaches based on the reality of countries such as India. The third tendency was the approach defended by Lenin and accepted by the congress.

The Italian delegate Serrati put forward views opposing the linking of the progress of the world revolution to national liberation struggles in the East. From the perspective of the progress of the world revolution, the emphasis on the importance of the proletarian struggle in European countries was not incorrect. Additionally, it was correct that the national liberation struggles in the East could not replace the proletarian struggle in Europe. However, the issue under discussion encompassed more complex aspects beyond this. For example, Serrati was not correct in dismissing the discussion about the East as insignificant. Because the revolutionary awakening in Asian countries was a reality and deserved attention. Furthermore, Serrati and the Iranian delegate Sultanzade argued that national liberation movements in which the bourgeoisie participated were not revolutionary movements. According to them, supporting national liberation struggles led by the national bourgeoisie in colonial countries would confuse the class consciousness of the proletariat.

This approach was wrong because it did not take into account the concrete situation in a colonial country and made a generalisation independent of historical conditions. However, the question of whether national liberation movements, even under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, still have a revolutionary character compared to the past can only be answered by looking at the concrete historical conditions. For example, during Lenin’s time, in backward colonial countries, where the proletariat was not yet able to play an independent political role, the national liberation struggle was inevitably led by bourgeois or petty-bourgeois elements. In such situations, neither does the national liberation struggle lose its legitimacy, nor does a struggle confined to bourgeois leadership rise to a revolutionary character that transcends its own limits. That is the case, and what Lenin sought to clarify was the basis on which a national liberation struggle is legitimate under such concrete conditions.

Lenin’s approach is correct and aimed at determining concrete political tactics. Yes, the strategy of the proletariat must be based on the permanence of the revolution, and the real and comprehensive solution of all democratic issues, including the national question, is possible only through a social revolution led by the proletariat. However, even when the proletariat has not yet actually assumed this historical mission, national liberation wars can break out, and communists must be able to determine the correct tactics in the face of such realities. For this reason, it is wrong to develop a uniform attitude towards all countries where national liberation struggles are taking place. For example, it is necessary to approach a large colonial country like India, where capitalism is developing rapidly, and an extremely backward colonial country in Asia or Africa that is still struggling to transition from feudalism to capitalism, based on the differences between them. In the former, the national question must be addressed directly on the basis of the political tasks of the proletariat, while in the latter, as Lenin pointed out, the fact that the country is still struggling to emerge from the darkness of the Middle Ages must be taken into account.

Let us return to the discussions of the Second Congress. Roy, who did not differ much from the Italian delegate Serrati on the limited character of the national liberation struggle, differed from him and others who shared his views on the importance of Asia. Roy drew on the example of India, which was more developed than other colonial countries. He argued that there was a fundamental difference between the national independence movement of the native bourgeoisie and the movement of the working class and peasantry against exploitation, and that the two could not develop together in the same direction.

Roy based his argument on the fact that the European proletariat was silenced by the income from the colonies and argued that the European working class could not overthrow capitalism unless this source of income was dried up. For this reason, he linked the fate of the revolutionary movement in Europe entirely to the development of the revolution in the East. While giving due importance to the revolutionary awakening in the East, Lenin did not approve of Roy’s approach and, joining the European delegates, criticised Roy:

“Comrade Roy goes too far when he asserts that the fate of the West depends exclusively on the degree of development and the strength of the revolutionary movement in the Eastern countries. In spite of the fact that the proletariat in India numbers five million and there are 37 million landless peasants, the Indian Communists have not yet succeeded in creating a Communist Party in their country. This fact alone shows that Comrade Roy’s views are to a large extent unfounded.”[13]

Despite the objections of Serrati and the European delegates, Lenin had Roy’s thesis adopted with a slight modification to the following formulation:

“Extra profit gained in the colonies is the mainstay of modern capitalism, and so long as the latter is not deprived of this source of extra profit it will not be easy for the European working class to overthrow the capitalist order.”[14]

At its session on 26 July, the Congress considered the report of the Commission on National and Colonial Questions. Lenin, who was the rapporteur on this issue, referred in his opening speech to the question that had caused controversy during the commission’s work, namely the question of supporting bourgeois democratic liberation movements. Roy objected to the concept of “bourgeois democratic movement” and used the concept of “revolutionary national movement” in his own theses. Reiterating that national movements, by their historical character, possess a “bourgeois democratic” quality, Lenin accepted the proposal to change the concept for another reason. The reason was this: In the face of the imperialist bourgeoisie’s attempt to organise reformist movements alongside the native bourgeoisie of the colonies to suppress the revolutionary upsurge, it had become necessary to distinguish between “reformist” and “revolutionary” movements. Lenin stated that the commission had discussed these issues and unanimously agreed to replace the term “bourgeois democratic movement” with “revolutionary national movement”. This was intended to clarify the conditions under which liberation movements in colonial countries would be supported:

“… we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong.”[15]

After some changes were agreed upon during the commission’s discussions, the congress accepted the twelve theses contained in Lenin’s draft.[16] The characterization of national movements was certainly not a simple matter of terminology, and Lenin was not fundamentally mistaken when he used the term “bourgeois-democratic movement”. This is because the truly dangerous position on such issues –whether led by a reformist bourgeois or a revolutionary petty-bourgeois leadership– is to not emphasize the inherent limitations of the national liberation struggle and to almost equate it with social revolution. Indeed, the Stalinist tradition created a great deal of theoretical confusion on this matter, reducing the strategy of proletarian revolution in colonial countries to the level of national liberation struggle. The Marxist understanding of permanent revolution, which guides the world proletariat, was discarded thanks to a “Trotskyism” bogeyman created by the Stalinist school of falsification, and replaced by a caricature of staged revolution that prioritized the interests of the ruling bureaucracy. Stalinism slyly distorted Lenin’s cautious evaluations and his conditional support for national liberation struggles, which prioritized the interests of the proletarian revolution. Thus, a “Leninism” was created in colonial or dependent capitalist countries based on building popular fronts with the national bourgeoisie. There are so many examples of this, but let us return to our main topic.

In fact, the fundamental issue underlying the debates between Lenin and Roy was the reality of colonial countries at different levels of development. Lenin, who took into account the backward countries, i.e., countries where the proletariat had not yet been able to play an independent political role, was right to take into account the progressive role of the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern era and the establishment of a nation-state led by the bourgeoisie in these countries. Roy, on the other hand, was not wrong in considering such an approach insufficient in a colonial country like India. Therefore, to reach clearer conclusions in the Second Congress debates, it was not necessary to reconcile different approaches reflecting different concrete conditions, but rather to take the objective differences as the basis.

Roy argued that, given the level of capitalist development and the existence of the proletariat in countries like India, the leadership of the colonial revolution should be in the hands of the proletariat from the very beginning. Roy stated that the movement of the native bourgeoisie, which limited itself to the goal of national independence, and the struggle of the working class and peasantry against the capitalist system of exploitation were very different in scope. For this reason, he believed they could not develop together and that there was an objective contradiction between them:

“There are to be found in the dependent countries two distinct movements which every day grow further apart from each other. One is the bourgeois-democratic nationalist movement, with a programme of political independence under the bourgeois order, and the other is the mass action of the poor and ignorant peasants and workers for their liberation from all forms of exploitation. The former endeavours to control the latter, and often succeeds to a certain extent, but the Communist International and the affiliated parties must struggle against such control and help to develop class-consciousness in the working masses of the colonies.”[17]

Roy’s approach was generally correct, and his warning about the bourgeois democratic national movement in a country like India was well-founded. Although there were some differences between Lenin and Roy’s theses on the points we have mentioned, they shared a similar view on the nature of the soviets that could arise in Asian countries. Due to the concrete conditions of Asian countries, the organs created by revolutionary uprisings there could be soviets of workers and poor peasants.

At the Congress, another important issue was also discussed in this context. It was not a necessity that the backward countries of Asia would go through a stage of capitalist development, except under one condition: with the help of the proletariat of the advanced countries. Lenin’s approach was as follows:

“It would be a mistake to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of development. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat carries on systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal, it would be a mistake to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of development.”[18]

The advancement of the proletarian revolution on an international scale could indeed change the fate of revolutions in backward and colonial countries, provided it embraces the working masses in those nations and the victorious proletariat in advanced countries comes to their aid. Thus, in his approach to the problems of oppressed peoples, Lenin incorporated the assistance of the proletariat of advanced countries and the victorious Soviet governments, offering an all-round perspective on the solution. However, we must draw attention to an important point here. It would be a highly unfortunate endeavor to try to draw a parallel between this perspective on revolution in backward and colonial countries and the later “non-capitalist path” theses, which were a product of Stalinism. This is because when Lenin spoke of a non-capitalist path to social liberation for backward countries, he was talking about a path that would be paved by the advanced proletariat who had seized power. In contrast, the Stalinist understanding of the “non-capitalist path” paved a “national developmentalist” road for the national bourgeoisie of these countries, allowing them to accelerate capitalist development through state capitalism.

First Congress of the Peoples of the East (Baku, September 1920)

The Comintern, which attached importance to the awakening in Asia and aimed to break the Eastern peoples away from the hegemony of the imperialist camp and draw them to the side of the Soviet Republic, also organised separate meetings embracing communist and national liberation organisations in Asia. The First Congress of the Peoples of the East, held in Baku in 1920, was one of these meetings, in accordance with the decision of the Second Congress. The speeches made by delegates from Eastern countries at the Congress reflected a mix of petty-bourgeois nationalism and sympathy for Soviet support, nationalist sentiments influenced by communist ideas, and, in short, an immature and confused intellectual atmosphere.

The discussions at the Baku Congress mainly covered the problems of Muslim nations that were former colonies of Tsarist Russia. During the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were able to positively influence the political representatives of oppressed nations with their principled attitude on the right of nations to self-determination. For example, Sultan Galiyev, one of the leading figures of Muslim nationalism in Central Asia, joined the Bolsheviks in November 1917 and also organised the Muslim Communist Party.

Muslim “communists” such as Sultan Galiyev, who aimed to establish a separate Muslim state, actually represented the nationalism of oppressed nations. On the other side of the coin were “communists” such as Stalin, who represented the nationalism of the oppressor nation. Among the political leaders of the Eastern peoples, there was growing dissatisfaction with the Bolsheviks’ attitude on the national question, which was seen as resembling the practices of the former colonial state. The practices that were an extension of the great Russian chauvinism, which Lenin would also begin to feel increasingly uncomfortable with, pushed the petty-bourgeois socialists of the Muslim nations (such as Sultan Galiyev) to the point of completely exaggerating the revolutionary spirit of the oppressed nations.[19]

Lenin attached importance to the struggle for liberation of the oppressed nations of the East as an ally of the world proletarian revolution. However, the petty-bourgeois socialists of the Eastern peoples began to show their distrust of the world proletariat. For example, Sultan Galiyev interpreted the idea of assistance from the proletariat of developed countries as “coming to the colonial regions in a saviour role” and opposed this approach. This Muslim nationalist claimed that not only traditional imperialist powers such as Britain and France, but also the industrial proletariat of the Soviet Union, were pursuing the exploitation of peoples rather than their liberation. In his view, the proletariat’s seizure of power would merely mean a change of masters for the colonial peoples.

Sultan Galiyev’s ideas constitute an old but striking example of the false socialist or anti-imperialist rhetoric that underlies Muslim nationalism, which we are familiar with today. Moreover, his ideas are a typical example of the true nature of many Eastern nationalists who participated in the Baku Congress dressed in “communist” garb. Such ideas express the class reaction of petty-bourgeois nationalism, which, due to the conditions in which it finds itself, paints itself in “communist” colours, towards the proletariat and its revolution. Galiyev, who tries to sell the nationalism of the oppressed nations as “socialism”, says:

“Muslim peoples are proletarian nations. The difference between the proletarians of England and France and those of Morocco and Afghanistan is very great. It can be argued that nationalist movements in Muslim countries have a socialist revolutionary character.”[20]

Sultan Galiyev argued that the fundamental contradiction in the world lies between industrial metropolises and colonies. He stated that the only way forward for Eastern nations was for “the proletarian nations of the East to unite and establish a dictatorship over the West”. As an extension of this view, he argued for the establishment of a separate international organisation, independent of the Third International, which would defend the interests of “backward proletarian nations against developed countries”. Muslim representatives who participated in the Baku Congress displayed complex feelings of distrust toward the Soviet state and their need for its support, as well as a supposed sympathy for communism based primarily on petty-bourgeois nationalism.

At the Baku Congress, Pavlovic, the Comintern rapporteur on thenational and colonial question, reiterated in his speech the line set out in the Second Congress theses:

“The discussions at the Second Congress of the Third International led us to the conclusion that the backward peoples of the East, with the help of countries that have an advanced proletariat, can establish a Soviet-type order and, after a transitional period, can reach the communist stage without passing through the capitalist stage.”[21]

Bela Kun, President of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, presented the theses to the congress delegates on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. The sixth article of the theses stated:

“The victory of the Communist Party in the West will put an end to the exploitation of the peoples of the East. (…) In order to fully liberate the East from imperialist exploitation, to give the land to the workers, and to remove the exploiters from power... it is absolutely necessary to remove the foreign colonizers from power and to establish the power of the poor classes on Soviet foundations. The interest of the working masses of the East lies in the understanding of the necessity of establishing Soviet orders in their countries.”[22]

The theses presented to the congress delegates were approved unanimously. The declaration titled “To the Peoples of the East”,published by the Baku Congress, concluded with the following words:

“We call on you for a Holy War to remove the division of the world into advanced and backward, dependent and independent, metropolitan and colonial countries.

“Peoples of the East! In this Holy War, all the revolutionary workers and oppressed peasants of the West will be with you. They will help you, fight alongside you, and give their lives.”[23]

As can be seen, the Comintern officials did not agree with the proposals put forward during the Congress discussions that centred on the East. This was the correct attitude. However, in an effort to alleviate the demoralisation caused by the retreat of the revolutionary wave in Europe, the revolutionary potential in the East would still be exaggerated to a considerable extent.

Among the decisions adopted by the Congress was an important provision concerning the national struggle in Turkey. This provision stated that the national revolutionary movement in Turkey was directed solely against foreign exploiters. It emphasised that this movement would not mean the liberation of workers and peasants from oppression and exploitation, and that even if it were successful, it would not bring about the solution to the most important problems of the Turkish working masses. Indeed, the outcome of the Turkish national struggle which was generally confined to the leadership of former Ottoman pashas fully confirmed these statements.

The Political Situation Before the Third Congress and the Turkey Question

The year 1921 marked a turning point in terms of the adverse conditions the Soviet state had entered. The fading hope for revolution in Europe had become abundantly clear. The German revolution, which was expected to end the isolation of the Soviet state, was defeated, and the March uprising of the German Communist Party was suppressed by counter-revolutionary forces. The isolated Soviet state was faced with the problem of coexisting with bourgeois states on its own. With the certainty that the European revolution would not come to the rescue, the policy of establishing “peaceful” relations with bourgeois states in order to keep the isolated Soviet state alive came to the fore. In March 1921, measures resulting from the isolation of the Soviet state followed one after another.

In order to prevent economic collapse and famine, the Soviet government signed a trade agreement with Britain on 16 March. Under this agreement, the Soviet government undertook not to engage in political activities in countries in Asia where Britain was ruling. Then, on 18 March, a peace agreement was signed with Poland. Meanwhile, the change in circumstances brought about by the agreement between the Soviet government and the United Kingdom began to manifest itself in concrete terms. While the British were paving the way for an agreement with M. Kemal, the Soviets were also signing a “friendship” agreement with Kemalist Turkey. Thus, the tension between the principled decisions taken at previous Comintern congresses and the changing political balances in practice would also be clearly felt in the approach to the “national struggle” led by M. Kemal in Turkey.

The bourgeois leader of the national struggle, M. Kemal, initially weak and lacking support, carried out actions that almost made him appear “communist” to the Soviet government. For example, in a telegram sent to Moscow on 29 November 1920, he spoke of the cooperation between the peoples of Asia and Africa and the Western proletariat to overthrow bourgeois rule. However, when conditions changed to the detriment of the Soviet Union, M. Kemal would feel more confident about the strategic importance of Turkish territory for the Soviet state. This allowed him to feel assured of Soviet aid and to use the Soviet factor as a bargaining chip to gain acceptance from the imperialists.

The Turkish bourgeoisie, which wanted to carve out a place for itself in Anatolia and establish its own nation-state against the imperialist states seeking to divide the Ottoman Empire, resorted to every means to prevent the national struggle in Anatolia from escaping its control. In January 1921, Mustafa Suphi, founder of the Turkish Communist Party, and 14 of his comrades were drowned in the Black Sea in an assassination organised by the bourgeois leadership of the national struggle. Following this massacre, the peasant struggle led by Çerkez Ethem (the Green Army movement) was suppressed. Despite these developments, the Soviet government did not sever its relations with M. Kemal; in fact, no expression of discontent was even made. While the Soviet government was struggling with major economic and military difficulties, it sent M. Kemal ten million gold rubles and a significant amount of arms in accordance with the Treaty of Brotherhood signed in March 1921.

The emergence of a genuine anti-imperialist popular movement in Anatolia, right under the nose of the Soviet Union, inspired by the October Revolution, was a nightmare for both the Turkish bourgeoisie and the Western imperialist states. On one side was the Turkish bourgeoisie, eager to establish its own bourgeois order and Westernise and become capitalist; on the other side were the imperialists, terrified of the spread of the Soviet Revolution to Anatolia. These forces were in fact united by a common interest. This situation was a fundamental factor in determining the extent to which M. Kemal could defy imperialist states, as well as in prompting imperialist governments to come to their senses and extend an olive branch to bourgeois leaders like Kemal. The concessions made by the Soviet government to the Turkish bourgeoisie with the goal of “protecting the Soviet state” also played an important role in this process.

This situation pushed the Turkish communist movement into a very weak position from the outset. The assassination of its founding leaders by the bourgeoisie and the systematic repression that followed cut off the path of the communist movement in Turkey, allowing the Kemalist bourgeois leadership to easily establish its hegemony over the working masses. And thus, it succeeded in confining the national liberation struggle within bourgeois limits, stopping it at the point of achieving national independence and establishing a modern bourgeois nation-state. In short, the “national liberation struggle” in Turkey remained within the boundaries of the bourgeois leadership’s hegemony and, as the leadership itself called it, the “national struggle”, without turning into a workers’ and peasants’ uprising. It was up to the Turkish bourgeoisie to write this struggle into its official history as a “glorious anti-imperialist struggle that set an example for oppressed nations”. Unfortunately, however, due in part to the weaknesses of the Comintern at the outset and subsequently to the influence of Stalinist degeneration, communists in Turkey also sang the same tune for many years.

As we recall, the decisions of the Second Congress, which mentioned the possibility of temporary cooperation with bourgeois democrats in the national liberation struggles of colonial and semi-colonial countries, also specified the conditions for such cooperation. Communists were obliged, above all, to put the interests of the proletarian struggle first and determine tactics accordingly. Whether called an alliance or cooperation, the term “temporary” refers to a unity in action based on a concrete problem with clearly defined boundaries. Undoubtedly, the fundamental principle of communists in such cooperation is succinctly expressed in the words, “march separately, strike together; keep the flags separate”. Therefore, the fundamental criterion was to never compromise on independent political organisation, regardless of the name given to it. For this reason, maintaining vigilance and refusing to collaborate with those who harm the organisation under conditions that undermine it were indispensable conditions for communists.

Yes, it is not a correct attitude in political struggle to remain rigidly committed to principles without taking concrete conditions into account. However, tolerating the violation of principles in the name of “fulfilling the requirements of concrete conditions” lays the groundwork for greater mistakes and deviations over time. There is no harm in losing a small battle in order to win a larger war; or, in order to avoid losing the war, it may sometimes be necessary to make a bad peace. An example of this is the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty signed by the Soviet government with the Germans in 1918. In such a situation, the rule is not to present a negative decision as a positive example, but to reveal the necessities and contradictions with all their clarity. It is also an element of learning from experience to clearly understand that not every political stance in practice can be an exemplary one, and that, on the contrary, the difficulties encountered can sometimes force communist leaders to make decisions that are far from pleasant.

The Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, for instance, was a comprehensible example in that a decision forced by adverse yet objective circumstances was proclaimed without distortion. However, there was no justification for the Turkey question being covered up instead of being openly discussed within the Comintern. This mistaken attitude led to numerous illusions about the nature of the national struggle and M. Kemal’s leadership in Turkey, creating ambiguities to exploit. This situation would later pave the way for the class-conciliatory line, which would be imposed on the Turkish communist movement in Stalin’s time, to be accepted without question. In this environment, Stalinism would seize on the existing weaknesses, causing a tendency to tail-end Kemalism, a nationalism of oppressor nation, and a shameful conception of “front” or “anti-imperialism” that meant a deep intermingling with its own bourgeoisie to dominate the Turkish communist movement for many years.

In order to draw lessons from past periods, it is still meaningful today to question whether the Soviet government’s support for the bourgeois leadership in Turkey was correct. Undoubtedly, a revolutionary struggle can confront revolutionaries with the necessity of making many unpleasant sacrifices. In the context of the “part-whole” relationship, it may be necessary to prioritise the interests of the “whole”. However, in order to learn the right lesson from history in our example, we must never lose sight of the fact that the “whole” is the interests of the world revolution. The success of the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle depends not on the confinement of revolutions within the borders of individual workers’ states, but on the contrary, on the permanency of the revolution on a global scale. However, if this principle is not to be reduced to a mere slogan, it is undoubtedly necessary to correctly assess what is possible or impossible under the concrete conditions of the moment.

For example, in a situation where the gains of the October Revolution were still a reality, it was a revolutionary attitude to seek to defend this position in order to regroup and prepare for a new offensive of the world revolution. To avoid misunderstanding this point, let us recall the irreconcilable contradiction between the concern for defence based on correct foundations during Lenin’s period and the “defensive” instinct of the Stalin period. The fundamental problem during the Stalin period was the desire to protect a “Soviet Union” that had become a state ruled by the dominant bureaucracy, at the expense of strangling the world revolution. Returning to our examination of the Lenin period after this necessary reminder, we can summarise the outcome as follows: even if the Soviet government’s stance on theTurkey question could be based on an acceptable foundation within the framework of the “part-whole” relationship, the path followed was still incorrect for two reasons. First, the failure to clearly state the facts; second, while making certain concessions to the bourgeois leadership of the national struggle, the lack of vigilance in protecting the political independence and the lives of the leaders of a communist movement that had only just opened its eyes to the world.

Third Congress of the Communist International (June-July 1921)

This congress coincided with the beginning of an adverse period in which the revolutionary wave in Europe was receding, the October Revolution was isolated, and the Soviets were facing enormous economic difficulties. The Comintern had begun to struggle with the problem of regaining strength rather than organising a new advance of the world revolution. It was under these conditions that the united workers’ front, which would lead to very important debates and polarisations in the future, was brought to the agenda. The aim was to find a way out to strengthen the class movement under the conditions of a serious worldwide regression of the working-class movement. This front approach, approved during Lenin’s time, is a correct political tactic that aims to form a unity of forces and a united action among the various organizations of the working class.

The Third Congress did not dwell at length on the question of the colonies. Trotsky delivered the main speech, titled “The World Economic Crisis and the New Tasks of the Communist International”, at the session on 27 June. His speech included a comprehensive analysis of the capitalist world economy and took into account the economic recovery that had occurred in the three years following the end of the war. Stating that “capital still reigns over almost the entire world”, Trotsky noted that the balance of power had shifted after the war and that the bourgeoisie was beginning to feel stronger. Comparing the current situation to the conditions of the previous period, Trotsky said, “now, during the Third World Congress of the Communist International, the situation is not the same as it was during the First and Second Congresses”.[24] Likewise, in his speech on the tactics of the International at the June 30th session, Radek also pointed to the conditions of the receding revolutionary wave:

“If there is a lengthy breathing spell in capitalist society, we simply have different tasks than we do in a situation in which we perceive a general rising tendency of revolution. It would then not have the task of preparing proletarians to confront all the eventualities of civil war. Its principal task would then be to carry out organisation and agitation and to build armies for the coming battles”.[25]

The Third Congress also failed to give sufficient attention to the important developments taking place in Asian countries at that time. Reflecting the agreement reached with M. Kemal, the Congress remained silent on Turkey and made no mention of the repression of communists in that country. Yes, unfortunately, not a single word was uttered in the congress decisions to protest the massacre of Turkish communists. The Third Congress did not address the colonial question, due generally to the retreat of the revolutionary wave and particularly to the pressure of the Soviet government’s agreement with Britain. During the discussions, this issue was passed over with a few sentences. For example, the speaking time for delegates from colonial countries was limited to five minutes by the congress presidency. Roy, condemning this attitude, used his five-minute speaking time to voice his protest:

“I have been given five minutes for my report. Since the topic could not be exhausted even in an hour, I will use these five minutes to launch an energetic protest. The way that the Eastern question has been handled at this congress is purely opportunistic and more appropriate for a congress of the Second International. It is impossible to reach any specific conclusions in the few comments that delegates from the East are permitted to make”.[26]

An important point to mention in the context of the congress debates and decisions is Lenin’s Reporton the Tactics of the Russian Communist Party, presented to the congress delegates on 5 July. The report includes a section on the issue of national liberation struggles. Lenin points out that these struggles have the potential to transform into an anti-imperialist struggle under conditions where the world revolution enters a new phase of upsurge.

“It is clear that in the future decisive battles of the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the population of the globe, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps, play a much more revolutionary role than we anticipate. It is important to emphasize the fact that we have for the first time in our International taken up the problem of preparing for this struggle. Of course, there are many more difficulties here than in other fields, but in spite of everything, the movement is advancing. And the oppressed masses –the peasants in the colonial countries– in spite of their backwardness, will play a very important revolutionary role in the future stages of the world revolution”.[27]

Under conditions where the world revolution is in retreat, national liberation struggles cannot, on their own, deal serious blows to the imperialist-capitalist system. Lenin himself questioned under what conditions the movement of the oppressed masses in the colonial countries, which was still a national liberation war, could truly become an anti-imperialist struggle. On the one hand, he highlights the difference in scope between these two struggles; on the other hand, he links such a transformation to the conditions of the rise of the world revolution.

First Congress of the Communist and Revolutionary Organisations of the Far East (January 1922)

The congress evaluated the struggle developing within the oppressed nations of Asia on the basis of achieving a worldwide unity of the proletariat and oppressed peoples. The Congress Manifesto expresses the perspective of forming a unity of Far Eastern workers under the banner of the Communist International. The struggle in Asian countries is not limited to a purely national liberation struggle, but is instead framed within the broader struggle against capital and imperialism. The manifesto declares the goals of overthrowing the tyrants, establishing a just order for the working people, expelling the parasites, and establishing the power of those who will rise from the ranks of the workers and peasants. The manifesto concludes with an appeal to the working masses of the Asian countries: “Organize! Join our fighting ranks! Form workers’ and peasants’ organizations to fight against capital and imperialism! Prepare for war!”[28]

The most significant development in the Manifesto is that the demand for the unity of the world proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world against world imperialists is expressed for the first time in the form of an explicit war slogan. Marx and Engels’ famous call has been expanded into the following war slogan: “The Communist International has raised the great slogan: Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!”[29] Thus, the “united workers’ front” tactic raised at the Third Congress of the Communist International was expanded, and a conception ofanti-imperialist front that the working class would form together with the oppressed nations’ working masses in the struggle against the imperialist system was reached.

It is correct to apply such tactics provided that the core of the united struggle is formed by workers’ organisations and that the principle of the independent organisation of the proletariat is strictly adhered to. However, such issues are actually very sensitive and require complete clarity. For example, while the historical goal expressed in the slogan “Workers of all countries, unite!” was meaningful at the time when it was first articulated, the addition of “oppressed peoples” to broaden its scope should not create any ambiguity on this issue. The main thing in the anti-imperialist struggle is to make sure the working class is united. But the front tactics based on this foundation can give life to the proletariat’s alliance politics in the right way and help the revolutionary proletariat’s struggle move forward in a healthy way. Unfortunately, the question of the front was not discussed at length at the Comintern meetings during Lenin’s time and was not clarified sufficiently. Trotsky later tried to continue the line defended by Lenin, but due to the dominance of Stalinism in the Comintern and the Soviet Union, a completely distorted conception of the front was made prevalent in the world communist movement as a whole.

Fourth Congress of the Comintern (November-December 1922)

The Fourth Congress was the last Comintern congress attended by Lenin. Due to his illness, Lenin was only able to present a single report, Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revolution. Meanwhile, the diplomatic environment that had prevented the colonial question from being addressed at the previous congress had changed as a result of new developments. For example, Britain had opposed the Soviet government’s participation in the Lausanne Conference, where the Turkish question was to be discussed. Thus, the factor of the Soviet government’s submission to the pressure of the diplomatic agreement reached with Britain in the previous period had been eliminated. The Fourth Congress allocated a significant portion of its agenda to the colonial issue. The draft resolution on the national question and the colonial issue was prepared by delegations from Eastern countries with the assistance of Comintern leaders.

The issue of nationalism raised during the Congress discussions, like in the Second Congress, revealed differences in tendencies. Among the Eastern delegates, there were nationalist delegates from Muslim countries who advocated Pan-Islamism, as well as delegates such as Roy, a communist from India, who addressed the national and colonial issues on the basis of the revolutionary mission of the proletariat. And it was neither possible nor correct for these different views to be reconciled.

For example, Tan Malaka, an Indonesian delegate and representative of Muslim nationalists, sought to promote and defend Pan-Islamism as the progressive and anti-imperialist political movement of the Muslim peoples of the East. From this standpoint, he argued that all national movements should be supported. Malaka was a typical example of some Eastern delegates who had not yet freed themselves from the influence of religion and taken shape on the basis of primitive nationalism.

Roy, however, approached the national question from the perspective of advancing the struggle of the working class. He brought very important and comprehensive views to the congress’s discussion agenda. For this reason, Roy’s theses require a brief review. Roy pointed out that the experiences gained after the Second Congress of the Comintern made it possible to determine much more comprehensive principles on the national and colonial question. The Second Congress, in evaluating the revolutionary national movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries, had specifically assigned the communist parties of imperialist countries the task of supporting these movements. Reminding the congress delegates of this point, Roy also pointed out a significant shortcoming:

“Only a few then understood that the inclusive term «colonial and semi-colonial countries» embraced quite different regions and peoples. Furthermore, these regions and peoples included every form of social development and of political and industrial backwardness. We thought that since all these countries were politically, economically and socially backward, we could put them all in the same basket and solve the problem as a general one. This was a wrong view”.[30]

It was not correct to follow a political line that could only be valid in a more backward country in a colony like India, where capitalism was quite developed. The experiences of Turkey, China, and India after the Second Congress proved the fallacy of a wholesale approach to Eastern countries. For this reason, Roy divided these countries into three main groups:

“We can divide Eastern countries into three groups. First, we see countries where capitalism has reached a fairly high level of development. In these countries, industry has not developed solely through capital imported from large capital centres; alongside this, a local capitalism has also emerged. This capitalism has led to the formation of a bourgeoisie with developed class consciousness and, as its opposite, a proletariat. Similarly, this proletariat is developing its own class consciousness and engaging in economic struggles that are gradually moving towards the political stage. Second, we can include countries where capitalist development has begun but remains at a backward stage, with feudalism still forming the backbone of society. Thirdly, there are countries where primitive relations prevail and the feudal patriarchal order has left its mark on society.

“(…) in all of these countries we are dealing with a revolutionary movement. Yet since their social structures are dissimilar, so too is the nature of their revolutionary movements. To the degree that their social character differs, so too must these movements’ programme vary, and so too must their tactics”.[31]

The first category of Eastern countries was exemplified by India. In such a colonial country where capitalism was more developed, it was clear that the native bourgeoisie would find it more beneficial to be under the protection of imperialism. For this reason, Roy rightly believed that the possibility of a national liberation struggle turning into a social revolution in such countries would frighten not only the imperialists but also the native bourgeoisie from the very outset, prompting them to determine their stance accordingly. Correctly grasping the fundamental characteristic of the era of imperialism, Roy, just like Lenin and Trotsky, also stated that imperialism signified a new method of exploitation: “Today it has found it necessary to reject the old methods of exploitation, and it has made certain political and economic concessions to a sector of the native bourgeoisie”.[32]

In countries like Turkey, which fall into the second category, Roy said that the national struggle was deepening in parallel with the development of the bourgeoisie. In these countries, too, there was a danger of the bourgeoisie coming to terms with imperialism; but it was also true that bourgeois nationalist movements objectively had a certain progressive function. In fact, in order to say whether the bourgeoisie was a revolutionary factor or not, specific historical reasons had to be taken into account. In short, it was necessary to evaluate the concrete situation, and Roy generally provided a correct criterion: “The bourgeoisie becomes a revolutionary force when it directs the rebellion against the backward and outworn social forms, that is, when the struggle is directed fundamentally against feudalism, and the bourgeoisie leads the people. In such conditions the bourgeoisie is the vanguard of revolution”.[33]

During the era of imperialism, the bourgeoisie’s fear of radical changes that would benefit the broad peasant masses was a significant reality. Therefore, the bourgeoisie of colonial countries generally acted in a way that would gain political independence but also prevent social movements from advancing towards more radical goals. In other words, the bourgeoisie of colonial countries could fight to be liberated from colonial status, but could also easily switch to the counter-revolutionary side on issues like agrarian revolution that were in the interests of the working masses. Aware of these realities, Roy stated that the native bourgeoisie was open to compromise with imperialism at any moment, and that one could not expect comprehensive revolutionary action or anti-imperialism from this bourgeoisie. Thus, he also explained his hesitations about the national struggle in Turkey: “It leads the struggle of the weak and undeveloped and oppressed bourgeoisie against a strong and developed bourgeoisie. Instead of a class struggle, this is so to speak a conflict within a single class, and as such, it presents a basis for compromise”.[34]

In both India and Turkey, it had become clear that the local ruling elements were seeking ways to compromise with imperialist capitalism. Therefore, in such countries, it was a necessary condition for the proletariat to take over the leadership for the national liberation struggle of the working masses to be elevated to the level of a struggle against the imperialist capitalist system. And this was possible in all countries where capitalism had developed to a certain extent. As Roy pointed out, when the movement in the colonies acquired a revolutionary character, it not only threatened imperialist capital but also turned against the local ruling classes: “We see a dual struggle in the colonial countries, directed simultaneously against foreign imperialism and the native privileged classes, which indirectly or directly reinforce and support foreign imperialism”.[35]

The struggle against imperialist Britain in Egypt and India had stalled due to the cowardice and vacillation of the bourgeoisie: “And a great revolutionary movement that embraced the broad masses of peasants and the working class and seriously threatened imperialism was unable to cause it serious damage for the simple reason that its leadership lay in the hands of the bourgeoisie”.[36] Taking into account the limited content of the national struggle in Turkey, Roy also made an important assessment on this issue:

“You are aware that the significant victory of the Turkish people has not been carried through to its logical conclusion thanks to the feudal military clique that at present heads the movement. Whether the Turkish people can achieve a complete victory and the full political and economic liberation of the Turkish nation has been put in question, in order to serve the interests of a small feudal military clique who consider it more advantageous to sell out to a group of imperialists. This clique preferred to link up with one group of imperialists against another. That could lead to the enrichment of this group and to Mustafa Kemal Pasha ascending the throne in place of the sultan, who was mainly a tool of British imperialism. But that does not in any way resolve the Turkish national question. And we know that during the two or three months that revolutionary forces around the world were celebrating the victories of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, they received word that in free Turkey, liberated by the revolutionary power of workers and peasants, Kemal is now brutally persecuting all those who strive for the welfare of workers and peasants”.[37]

Roy’s assessments are very different from the attitude that was elevated to a general trend during the Stalin period, which was to praise bourgeois nationalist leaders. Experience has proven that the bourgeoisie is quite capable of leading a national struggle limited to the achievement of political independence. However, when it comes to a genuine anti-imperialist struggle, the situation is completely different. In such cases, expecting progressive, revolutionary functions from the bourgeoisie is a very dangerous illusion. Indeed, this is the main issue Roy is trying to explain. As will be recalled, the revolutionary Marxist attitude onthe united front is entirely different from the class collaborationism established during the Stalinist period, which resulted in the dissolution of communists within the “national struggle” fronts led by the bourgeoisie. On the issue ofthe united front against imperialism, Roy has again taken a correct political approach:

“Shoulder to shoulder with the united front of the working class in the Western countries, we must organise an anti-imperialist united front in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. (…) The experience of the last two years has proven that this front cannot be achieved under the leadership of the bourgeois parties. We must develop our parties in these countries, in order to take over the leadership and organisation of this front”.[38]

Roy essentially understood the issue on the basis of securing the fighting unity of the workers. However, among the congress delegates, there were also views that championed the future Stalinist line. For example, despite Roy having said that “revolutionary national movements will not succeed under the leadership of the bourgeoisie”, the Chinese delegate Lin Yen Chin explained that they had decided to form an anti-imperialist front together with the bourgeoisie:

“On the assumption that an anti-imperialist united front is necessary in order to drive imperialism out of China, our party decided to form a national front with the national-revolutionary Kuomintang Party. The members of the Communist Party have joined the Kuomintang as individuals... If we do not enter this party, we will undoubtedly remain isolated, preaching a communism that is a great and noble ideal but which the masses do not follow... If we enter the Kuomintang, we will be able to show the masses that we are also for revolutionary democracy, but that for us, revolutionary democracy is only a tool, even though we do not disregard the daily demands of the masses... We can gather the masses around us and split the Kuomintang party”.[39]

The consequences of the communists sacrificing their political independence and joining an organisation (the Kuomintang) under the hegemony of the bourgeoisie in the name of “unity of the front” became clear in the Chinese Revolution that followed. However, it was not necessary for a negative experience to occur for these truths to emerge. The ideas expressed by the Chinese delegate were conciliatory positions that were inconsistent with the issues Lenin had warned about at the Second Congress of the Comintern and with the general framework of the congress theses. However, the Fourth Congress did not explicitly criticise the approach of the Chinese communists.

The important assessments made by Roy during the Fourth Congress discussions were reflected in the congress theses. The theses contain more comprehensive approaches to the colonial question than the decisions of the Second Congress. Especially when we remember that the Third Congress did not discuss this issue sufficiently, the importance of the Fourth Congress’s analysis of the colonial question increases even more. Although the content of the congress theses generally reflects a correct perspective, there are still some problems. The congress decisions display an eclecticism in the form of juxtaposing ideas that are incompatible with each other. For example, in the introductory section of the Congress decisions, the views of some delegates (including Roy’s) are briefly summarised, while very different assessments are presented side by side without any commentary. In short, although we believe that there are some shortcomings and points open to debate, the theses and decisions of the Fourth Congress constitute an important starting point for the issues in question. The approach to the national independence struggle in the Fourth Congress theses is, in general terms, the same as that outlined in the Second Congress decisions:

“The fundamental task applicable to all national revolutionary movements is to achieve political independence and establish national unity. The real and logically appropriate solution to this problem depends on the extent to which such a national movement can separate itself from reactionary feudal elements, win over the broad working masses to its goals, and incorporate the social demands of these masses into its programme”.[40]

The theses emphasised the necessity of the participation of the peasant masses and a revolutionary agricultural programme for the national liberation struggle to advance into an anti-imperialist struggle. While bourgeois nationalists sought to limit the goals of the struggle to the attainment of political independence and the establishment of the nation-state, communists were obliged to take the struggle further. In this context, the importance of the agrarian revolution was great in colonial and semi-colonial countries where the peasantry was predominant. Once again, the congress theses, as noted in the decisions of the Second Congress, pointed to the danger of bourgeois nationalists disguising themselves as “communists” and thereby diverting the proletarian unity from its path:

“Taking advantage of the political authority of Soviet Russia and adapting themselves to the class instincts of the workers, the representatives of bourgeois nationalism –sometimes without being fully conscious of it themselves– have given their bourgeois-democratic aspirations a «socialist» or «communist» guise (for example, the Green Army party in Turkey, which gave a communist coloration to its Pan-Turanism, and the «state socialism» advocated by some leaders of the Kuomintang party in China) with the aim of diverting the nascent proletarian organisations from the direct tasks of class organisation”.[41]

The thesis that addressed the liberation of backward countries on the basis of an alliance with the proletariat of developed countries and the transition to the Soviet system stated the following:

“The alliance with the western proletariat opens the road to an international federation of Soviet republics. For backward peoples, the Soviet order represents the least painful transition from primitive conditions of existence to the advanced culture of communism, which is destined to replace capitalist production and distribution in the entire world economy. This is shown by the experience of Soviet construction in the liberated colonies of the Russian empire”.[42]

It was stated that the Comintern had a dual task in colonial and semi-colonial countries. The first task was to create the core of communist parties that represent the interests of the proletariat as a whole. The second task was to support the national revolutionary movement directed against imperialism to the maximum extent, to act as its vanguard, and to emphasise and expand the social movement within the national movement. The Fourth Congress, in a timely assessment, highlighted the social transformation dimension of the revolution in colonial countries that could not be limited to the establishment of the nation-state:

“The objective tasks of the colonial revolution are extending beyond the framework of bourgeois democracy, simply because a decisive victory of this revolution is incompatible with the rule of world imperialism. Initially, the native bourgeois intelligentsia forms the vanguard of the colonial revolutionary movements. But as the proletarian and semi-proletarian peasant masses are drawn into these movements, and to the degree that the social interests of these lower layers come to the fore, the big-bourgeois and agrarian bourgeois forces begin to turn away from the movement. The young proletariat in the colonies faces a lengthy struggle during an entire historical epoch – a struggle against imperialist exploitation and against its own ruling classes, who hold exclusive possession of all the advantages of industrial and cultural development and seek to keep the broad working masses in their earlier «prehistoric» condition”.[43]

The theses warned communists against incorrect approaches to the struggle in the colonies. It was pointed out that refusing to participate in the struggle against imperialist oppression in the colonies, in the name of defending the independent interests of the working class, would serve no purpose other than to undermine the proletarian revolution in the East. This accurate assessment was complemented by even more important warnings:

“No less damaging is the attempt to remain aloof from the struggle for the immediate interests of the working class in order to pursue ‘national unity’ or ‘civil peace’ with the bourgeois democrats. The Communist workers’ parties of the colonial and semi-colonial countries have a double task: both to fight for the most radical possible resolution of the tasks of a bourgeois-democratic revolution, aimed at winning political independence, and also to organise the worker and peasant masses in struggle for their particular class interests, profiting from all the contradictions in the nationalist bourgeois-democratic camp. By putting forward social demands, Communists provide an outlet for revolutionary energy that cannot be expressed in bourgeois-liberal demands, and spur on its development”.[44]

The formation ofan anti-imperialist united front has nothing to do with the participation of the proletariat in the organisation or political line of another class. On the contrary, from the point of view of revolutionary Marxism, the essence of front activity is to win the working masses to the revolutionary struggle of the working class. The Fourth Congress theses make the following assessment on this issue:

“The suitability of this slogan flows from the perspective of an extended, lengthy struggle against world imperialism, demanding the mobilisation of all revolutionary forces. This mobilisation is all the more necessary, since the native ruling classes tend to make compromises with foreign capitalism that are directed against the interests of the popular masses. And just as the slogan of proletarian united front in the West contributes to exposing Social Democratic betrayal of proletarian interests, so too the slogan of anti-imperialist united front serves to expose the vacillation of different bourgeois nationalist currents. This slogan will also promote the development of a revolutionary will and of class consciousness among the working masses, placing them in the front ranks of fighters not only against imperialism but also against survivals of feudalism”.[45]

It is clear that the struggle does not end with the achievement of political independence in the colonies; on the contrary, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat becomes easier to grasp. Taking this reality into account, the congress theses state: “Even in independent Turkey, the working class enjoys no freedom of association, a telling indication of the bourgeois nationalists’ attitude to the proletariat”. The theses emphasise that temporary agreements with bourgeois democracy can only be made on the condition that the proletariat does not compromise on its independent political organisation:

“The workers’ movement in the colonial and semi-colonial countries must strive above all to achieve the role of an independent revolutionary force in the overall anti-imperialist front. Only when its autonomous weight is acknowledged and its political independence is thus safeguarded is it permissible and necessary to conclude temporary agreements with bourgeois democracy”.[46]

One of the most important points in the Congress theses is that the struggle for an anti-imperialist united front must be conducted on the basis of a close alliance with the proletarian Soviet republics. However, this is not enough; the platform of struggle must also include the other transitional demands of the working class. The Fourth Congress also reflects the correct stance in assigning tasks to the communists of the metropolitan countries regarding the colonies:

“Every Communist party in countries that possess colonies must take on the task of organising systematic ideological and material assistance for the proletarian and revolutionary movement in the colonies. (…) The European Communist workers in the colonies must seek to organise the indigenous proletarians and win their trust through specific economic demands (raising the level of native workers’ pay to that of European workers, laws to protect labour, insurance, and so on). The creation of separate European Communist organisations in the colonies (Egypt, Algeria) is a hidden form of colonialism and furthers only the interests of imperialism. Any attempt to build Communist organisations on the basis of national characteristics contradicts the principles of proletarian internationalism”.[47]

CONCLUSION

Thus, we have outlined the main developments and decisions of the first four congresses of the Comintern on the national question, the colonial question, and the anti-imperialist struggle. Our aim was to draw a clear line between ourselves and the ideas and political attitudes that were imposed on us for many years under the hegemony of Stalinism in the name of “Marxism-Leninism”. Setting aside a few issues that we find problematic, we believe that the Comintern documents from Lenin’s period generally offer an internationalist communist approach. For this reason, we accept the congress decisions of this period as an important starting point, provided that they are not dogmatised as complete recipes offering final solutions to the issues discussed, and that the shortcomings and errors they contain are not overlooked.

In the years following the Fourth Congress, with the death of Lenin and the establishment of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s power in the Soviet Union, the line and character of the Comintern completely changed. The Comintern, under Stalin’s dominance, became adept at not only failing to adhere to the principles established during the Lenin era, but systematically evaporating and destroying them one by one. Petty-bourgeois nationalist forces were actively helped in their attempts to paint themselves with “communist” colours. Communist forces were dissolved within national fronts under the hegemony of the bourgeoisie. The Kuomintang experience during the Chinese revolution is a striking example in itself. On the issue of anti-imperialism, as with all other issues, Stalinism completely departed from Marxism and established a petty-bourgeois socialist mindset that opened the door to bourgeois reformism. In short, the Stalinist Comintern was a complete break from Marxist internationalism and the Comintern’s line in Lenin’s time. We will not attempt to detail how this break occurred or how the Comintern’s line gradually moved away from that of the Lenin era. Trotsky’s struggle on this matter and his historical assessments criticizing the post-Lenin Comintern line stand before us as a monumental source of reference.

During the Stalinist Comintern period, the struggle to advance the world revolution was branded as “sectarian”, “adventurist”, and “Trotskyist” and condemned. An official communism reflecting the interests of the Soviet ruling bureaucracy was created. And this “communism” won its war against revolutionary Marxism thanks to the official authority of the Stalinist Comintern, which liquidated the October Revolution but presented itself as its heir. Unfortunately, for many years, both revolution and reformism were sought and found within this Stalinist political framework! Within this framework, if reformism was a political tendency that sought to evolve towards “socialism” by prioritising bourgeois parliamentary struggle, then revolutionism would not go beyond a petty-bourgeois radicalism based on “national socialism”.

When we scraped away the various colours of paint covering the Stalinist politics that presented themselves as “Marxist-Leninist” or the “European communism” presented as a break with Stalinism, a common essence emerged. This essence was the replacement of the goal of overthrowing the imperialist-capitalist world system with a pseudo-socialist ideology based on a statism within national borders. In this context, the common feature of the “anti-monopoly” and “advanced democracy” programmes of the official communist parties in European countries and the “national revolutionary” and “national democratic” programmes in countries classified as “dependent on imperialism” was the explicit violation of the principle of proletarian hegemony. All of these were “front strategies” formed with “friendly” sections singled out from within the bourgeoisie. The front tactic, which during Lenin’s time aimed to enable the proletariat to regroup, defend itself, and move from a defensive to an offensive position, had been completely destroyed under Stalinist rule.

In the aftermath of the First World War, imperialist governments viewed the possibility of national liberation struggles transforming into social revolutions as a serious threat due to the appeal created by the October Revolution. In order to prevent the struggle in the colonies from reaching more advanced stages, they accepted the right of nations to determine their own destiny.[48] From the imperialists’ point of view, any way of preventing genuine proletarian revolutions was, in a sense, a tolerable situation. From the point of view of the Soviet Union, which had turned into a despotic-bureaucratic dictatorship, the great national chauvinism laid down by Stalin would be the main determinant of the world policy pursued by the Soviet leaders. Because the protection and preservation of the interests of this great nation-state was a matter of life and death for the bureaucratic dictatorship that continued to present itself as the centre of the world revolution.

The official communist world revolved around the lie that “serving the interests of the Soviet state is serving the world revolution”. Real progress in the world revolution could have meant the end of the world of lies created by Stalinism. Therefore, even though there was no unity of purpose between the imperialists and the Stalinist rulers, a consensus had nevertheless emerged based on their fear of the progress of the world revolution. Although the Second World War appeared to be the breakdown of this consensus, the war conjuncture was actually a period of heated division that also shattered the compromises between imperialist powers. The heated competition between imperialist countries prevented them from closing the book on the Soviet Union, which presented itself to the world as socialist, even if only falsely. Stalinist hegemony, which took a stance to protect the existence and interests of its own nation-state in the face of global developments, refrained from transforming the years of the Second World War, which brought death to the working masses, into a revolutionary uprising that would destroy the capitalist order. Resistance movements in European countries were dissolved within common “anti-fascist” fronts with the bourgeoisie.

At the end of the Second World War, with the direct intervention of the victorious Soviet Union, new “socialist” states were established, and the world now had a “socialist bloc” in addition to the bloc of capitalist countries. The world was now a two-bloc system, and the competitive struggles between imperialist countries were hidden behind a Cold War that would continue between these two blocs. Throughout this period, national liberation movements generally appeared to side with the Soviet bloc, using this as a threat and a bargaining chip against imperialist powers.

In the years following the Second World War, the Soviet bureaucracy’s approach to the revolutions that began with those in Yugoslavia, Albania and China and continued with examples such as Cuba and Vietnam was always determined by the protection of the Soviet state’s interests.[49] There is a reason why we single out these revolutions among various national liberation struggles. Because these examples, where hegemony was seized by the official Communist Parties during the national liberation struggle process, had a different dimension from national liberation struggles that ended under the leadership of the bourgeoisie.

If the Soviet bureaucracy had been left to its own devices, these experiences might have resulted in the establishment of “national developmentalist” bourgeois governments based on secret agreements with imperialist countries. However, these revolutions progressed under the hegemony of so-called communist leaderships that did not accept such an outcome but also did not embrace the revolutionary hegemony of the proletariat. These leaderships, despite having opposed the Soviet bureaucracy to one degree or another, ultimately established themselves on the basis of a Stalinist “national developmentalist” conception of socialism. They envied the power of the ruling bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and took as their model the Soviet state, which under Stalinism had turned into a despotic-bureaucratic dictatorship. They were able to steer the revolutionary process developing in their countries in a direction suited to their own sectarian interests and established their own nation-states modelled on the bureaucratic Soviet state.

In short, although the revolutions in these countries achieved a break with the imperialist system and an exit from capitalism, unlike other national liberation struggles, this change was never similar to the October Revolution. The advance of the revolution was halted under the hegemony of leaderships that opposed the genuine communist line aimed at world revolution. In these countries, the revolutionary process gave birth to copies of the Stalinist bureaucratic regime before reaching the October peak, that is, without ever bringing the proletariat to power. The socio-economic system in these countries was structured as a despotic-bureaucratic regime from its inception. Unlike in the Soviet Union, where a counter-revolutionary process based on the liquidation of the genuine workers’ power established by the workers’ revolution was carried out by the bureaucracy that later came to dominate, no such process occurred in these countries.

The ability of these countries to break free from capitalist operations undoubtedly stemmed from the Soviet Union’s status as a separate power centre against the imperialist system. Although the Soviet state was a bureaucratic dictatorship, it also needed to spread and consolidate its power, stand up to imperialist countries, and draw as many states as possible to its side in order to maintain its own existence. Thus, when the establishment of new nation-states modelled on the bureaucratic Soviet regime came to the fore in the countries in question, it became imperative for the Soviet bureaucracy to offer assistance that would draw these states into the Soviet bloc. The condition for this assistance was submission to the authority of the Soviet ruling bureaucracy, and as long as this condition was met, the assistance continued; when it was not, it was cut off.

Essentially, the supreme goal of nation-states similar to the despotic-bureaucratic regime in the Soviet Union was to find and implement ways to best protect the interests of their own nation-states. Therefore, conflicts of interest among these bureaucratic dictatorships were inevitable. Indeed, the world witnessed not only the rivalry between the imperialist bloc and the Soviet bloc, but also conflicts and hegemonic struggles between countries that called themselves socialist. The Soviet-Chinese rivalry was the most typical example of this situation.

The strengthening of the Soviet bloc did not have a positive meaning in terms of the interests of the world revolution, but it meant everything in terms of the survival of the Soviet ruling bureaucracy. Therefore, the national liberation struggles that developed during the Cold War years were not a goal that conflicted with the interests of the Stalinist ruling bureaucracy. However, the uprisings that began with the demand for national liberation did not stop at the point of achieving political independence but advanced toward social revolution under proletarian hegemony, which posed a real threat to bureaucratic dictatorship. And such threats had to be neutralised.

There were also different national liberation struggles, generally resulting in the establishment of bourgeois nation-states and, therefore, not breaking away from the capitalist system. Regardless of how they once labelled themselves, the common thread in all these examples –Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, etc.– was the bourgeois democratic character of their national struggles, which were limited to achieving political independence. The fact that the leaderships of these national struggles presented themselves as more revolutionary or pro-socialist due to the geopolitical balance of the era did not change the ultimate outcome.

Most of these countries followed the path of integration into the imperialist system under bourgeois governments and through state capitalism, where the state played a direct role in economic life. However, they were presented by the Soviet bureaucracy as countries that had embarked on a “non-capitalist path”, i.e., advancing toward socialism. A bloc was also invented for countries that did not belong to the “socialist bloc” but maintained good relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of mutual interests, and these were called the “Non-Aligned Movement”. Thus, as in the case of India, the bourgeoisie’s reliance on the support of the Soviet bureaucracy and its defiance of this or that imperialist state was elevated to the level of “anti-imperialism”.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the “socialist bloc” and the end of the Cold War, we have entered a new period in which there is no longer a “socialist” state that directly supports these distorted “anti-imperialist” currents. However, even if the material basis on which an ideology rests has disappeared, that ideology can continue to exist for a long time. We know that deeply rooted ideas are resilient. Indeed, orthodox Stalinist or centrist political currents still exist in various parts of the world. And after all the experiences we have gone through, it is now very clear that an “anti-imperialism” that is not rooted in the working class will be of no use to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.

Today, we are at a crucial historical turning point, with imperialist war drums beating due to the crisis of the capitalist system on the one hand, and the workers’ movement beginning to make its voice heard again in various parts of the world on the other. Without waging a systematic struggle against the entrenched misconceptions of the old era, it is impossible to meet the tasks of the new era. A new breakthrough is necessary, and for this, a resolute struggle must be waged in every respect. If a new organisation signifying a breakthrough is not grounded in a clear and comprehensive reckoning with the entrenched but distorted conceptions of the old era, then what is the point of all this effort?