We are still living in an extraordinarily turbulent period with widespread hot conflicts, a period that has begun with the collapse of the bureaucratic regimes in the Soviet Union and the like after the so-called “Cold War” era. The dominating power of the capitalist system, namely the USA, has confronted new imperialist adversaries such as rising China or Russia, which resulted in the world’s getting into a prolonged crisis of hegemony the outcome of which is not clear yet and this has become a chaotic historical period full of uncertainties. The main factor that determines this era is the escalating war for re-division between the old hegemonic power and the new forces that covet the throne of hegemony. American war staff’s promulgation of September 11 as the beginning of some new era is relevant to this and it is not an unavailing attempt. This date is a turning point for the American imperialism to block her rivals’ progression by taking action against them.
The territory where all these powers are striving for hegemony stretches from the Caucasus to the Middle East and from there to Afghanistan. The area being a great distance from the USA, is very close to the new rising powers of China and Russia and it is the battle field of the third imperialist war of division. The actual outset of this bloody war of division took place with the commence of Balkan wars which were provoked by the imperialist powers in 1990s. The scramble was between the US and European imperialists competing against each other by subverting Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, pitching one against another the former Yugoslavian peoples. However, even from that time, it was conspicuous that the American imperialism had in fact ambitions for a much broader region. As a matter of fact the American war staff established and reinforced new military bases on the area extending from the disintegrated Soviet Union territory to Afghanistan as a preliminary for the “Greater Middle East” assault they would commence afterwards. The ideological background of this imperialist re-division has been carried out through the ideological products of the bourgeois writers who are ready to serve for the global geopolitical purposes of the US imperialism. “The Clash of Civilizations”, written by Samuel P. Huntington within this framework, strikingly exemplifies how the US creates a climate prone to war in the areas where she wants to initiate a war of re-division by inciting ethnic and religious differences.
The 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers was the last piece of the chain of preparation carried out for a long time. This has served the aim of rallying American population around “their own” bourgeois against an uncertain enemy with Middle East origin. No matter what forces were involved in the de facto attack, the results achieved at the end of this process, have obvious linkage with the ambitions of US rulers. The top section of American bourgeoisie took action on the basis of the lessons they drew from the rising wave of opposition both in trenches and at home during the Vietnam national liberation war when they get upset. This time, before the multidimensional attacks on the Middle East, the fictitious foreign enemy was introduced much more vaguely and the alleged devil was presented as “international terrorism”. The underlying aim of this was to perplex the Americans in particular and the whole humanity in general with this made-up scenario of “terror”. As a consequence of all this preparation the bloody invasion in Iraq and a series of bombings in big cities such as Istanbul, London, Madrid made this fictitious “international terror” more convincing. The third imperialist war of division is thus being conducted under diverse guises.
Not a bluff
The territory, as the subject matter of this bloody division in question, will spread out this way or another. The signs of global aggression of American imperialism are undeniably clear which is the main reason for George W. Bush to proclaim that “they will write the history of the new century” after 9/11. Based on the expansionist designs of the US and in accordance with the imperialist war plan which has recently been named as The Broader Middle East Project, it has been verbalized by Condoleezza Rice that maps of 22 countries in the Middle East would be altered. Although no one can know what would happen in reality or who could defeat who, it is not a bluff at all that the continuous threats of the USA to countries such as Iran and Syria intensify constantly. Human history is full of examples demonstrating that those bombs heaped in the arsenals of imperialist powers will sooner or later be fired at peoples when those powers plunge into a great fight with one another.
Moreover, this time, it is a conflict that has been carried out through the involvement of nuclear weapons. This is a grave danger and directly concerns the peoples of all the countries that are under the scope of this threat. Turkey is also included in this area. But, above all, the present imperialist conflict of hegemony actually has the potential to wildly escalate effecting the whole world. For this reason just like the imperialist wars of division in the past, the present war of re-division functions like an acid test in terms of understanding the political leanings of left groups on an international scale.
The political approaches that underestimate the peril of widening of imperialist war and interpret the Iraqi war as “delirium” which is supposedly restricted to the government of Bush clique in the USA cannot lead and strengthen the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of the world. Those who hold ideas such as that a third world war could not be expected only because the flames of the hell of war are far away from them have revealed that they are just escaping from the reality. Also under present circumstances where the imperialist powers turn certain parts of the world into a bloodbath, it is utter evasion to ignore the harsh reality in these areas and try to console with the “left” winds in Latin America which seems to be far from the war zone. Just as the struggle against capitalist system that fosters militarism, racism, reaction and fascist threat, cannot be restrained to the framework of nationalism, the international revolutionary struggle of the proletariat cannot be elevated to the level of an organised power with such take-it-easy, opportunist and showy political attitudes. No-one should fool himself about that. There is one way to eliminate the threat of the expansion of imperialist wars and defeat the capitalist powers that embark on wars for re-division. The proletariat around the world needs the kind of political leaderships that does not deceive them, analyse the reality accurately and clearly no matter how harsh the situation might seem, and be ready to face the hardships to advance the struggle on an international level.
Today we should be able to grasp the two important issues on the world agenda approaching them with this consciousness, so that we can tell the difference between the right and the wrong while paying attention to the bourgeois traps on our way. This task requires a meticulous evaluation of events without null and void optimism about the developments in Latin America. What is more important is the need to fight against the tendency to place the imperialist war of division, which tends to spread out in the Middle East, in a secondary position as though it is something ephemeral, and it demands a serious way of tackling with this burning question on an international level. That the debates on the imperialist war which gives signs of spreading out are focused on such points as the USA’s incapacity to attack Iran as a result of her falling into a quagmire in Iraq cannot be accepted as righteous or naive. As a matter of fact the final destination of this type of approaches is blurring the minds of the working masses with a good-for-nothing type of mentality of liberalism or bourgeois socialism and diverting the political target. Since the Iraqi war started, the number of the civilians killed in the hell of the imperialist war has already exceeded 100.000. It is time to make it clear for the bourgeois socialists, who are trying to comfort themselves by phrases like “stupid Bush”, “America in quagmire”, that this war is not a humour contest.
Similar to the pretence that the US invented just before the attack on Iraq (searching for weapons of mass destruction), the US threats against Iran seem to be focused on the argument about “nuclear weapons”. But the objective is real and concrete. The American imperialism is not only trying to retrieve its lost privileges but also striving for a position on the global energy balance that will take shape as a result of the new powers’ move. Iran ranks high in the energy equation. However, owing to the prohibition the political regime in Iran put, the American energy corporations were expelled from the country during the Clinton government. Furthermore the problem did not remain at this point. Now, Iran is looking for ways to actualise her energy investment and energy flow projects with the contribution of China and India. The USA is concerned about how to reverse the latest developments unfavourable to her benefits, gain a more favourable position in the energy territory and above all find the most convenient way to prevent the Iranian energy resources from flowing to India and especially to China. For this very reason she is arranging hostile plans. The very recent “pre-emptive strike” plans by the American imperialism are carried out against the rival power Russia as well. With the difference that, it is, for the time being, in the realm of ideological and psychological war. The US vice-president Dick Cheney accuses Moscow of being “devoid of democracy” and “an energy blackmailer” and tries to form an energy axis against Russia, which is a forerunner of new conflicts to break out. While the escalating conflict of hegemony between the US and Russia over the vast territory of Russian sphere of influence is called “New Cold War” by some critics, it is obvious that it will not keep being cold but heat up sooner or later.
In the middle of this imperialist war jungle, the distracting and confusing political attitudes the examples of which we can find in several left groups inside and outside the country display the samples of political negligence. They do not learn from disasters in the 20th century. It should always be considered that an imperialist country becoming aggressive as a consequence of her motive for enlarging out into new markets would not plunge into militarist adventures with the expectation that everything would go smoothly. An imperialist power which is sure of its hegemonic position and confident about its power would not need to be frantically offensive. The great Versailles defeat, which the German imperialism had to suffer in the First World War, never caused them back away from the main stage, contrarily this failure dragged them into a ferocious bloody war hysteria. Even though imperialist powers in this kind of hysteria have sometimes the feeling of being pulled into a quagmire in the battle fields, this makes them not calm, but more offensive.
The main factors that propel capitalist countries towards escalating militarism and fascism are serious political and economic facts that threatens the operation of capitalist system. It is necessary not to misinterpret developments, which would end up serving in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The reason why the imperialist war started and spread out is not the fact that Hitler, in the past, and Bush, today, come to power by chance. On the contrary, the extraordinary crisis conditions that capitalism is being dragged into push such crazed people onto the front of the power stage. For this very reason, this type of historical times are extremely turbulent periods made up of deep waves hitting from the bottom, which are not restricted to the term of one bourgeois party or one political leader.
As a matter of fact some debates that took place in bourgeois press display the momentousness of the case. Some bourgeois researchers observe deep contradictions sharpening on certain points of capitalist system and remark that the approaching war will be so far-reaching that include unpredictably many countries. By not relating the offensive strategy of the US to the colossal problems that emerge in the foundations of the imperialist system, and trying to reduce them to “stupid” Bush administration, the European liberal left finds itself refuted by the present developments. No one should expect moderate solutions in the interests of humanity from aggressive imperialists. The unbearable lightness of vain expectations is so clear that even some American academics admit that things will continue the same way even if a prudent Democrat government comes to power in the US.
The importance of learning from similar experiences in history, in order to advance the struggle, is a very well known fact. If we remember the first and the second imperialist wars of division the first reality that strikes us is the great number of losses when the world proletariat was caught unprepared for such turbulent periods. Furthermore we can find many characteristics analogous to the social and political developments in the present world. The common decisive elements for the periods of wars of re-division are the deepening of the crisis of capitalist system, working masses’ convulsion by poverty, rising unemployment rates, crisis of the ordinary bourgeois forms of government, upsurge of fascism.
Haven’t we already been through enough experiences
The burning questions we face today point also to the need to analyse meticulously the plight of the working class struggle on a world scale from an objective and subjective point of view. The depth and the political consequences of the crisis of the capitalist system which develops in an uneven and combined way do not occur simultaneously everywhere. To give an example, in the Middle East there is a bloody war because of the imperialist aggression and provocation whereas in Latin America left winds are blowing. Apart from the vital problems which the objective conditions in the Middle East have brought up, we should be careful not to skip another crucial issue on the other part. Behind the left winds in Latin America there is a heap of problems that are vital from the standpoint of the revolutionary struggle of the working class. The revolutionary vigilance does not allow one to be overwhelmed with repetitious utterance of “left winds are blowing” and requires a serious approach towards these problems.
It is true that in various countries of Latin America revolutionary situations have been experienced on the basis of the rising mobilization of popular masses. However, to the contrary of some leftist circles’ claims, the revolutionary situations in these countries have not advanced towards revolutions that would bring capitalism to an end. Conversely, the revolutionary situations have been ceased one after another by the presidents who were presented by the same left circles as revolutionary leaders. Yet, in reality, they came out as left populist leaders. Even if we leave out the obvious fact that Lula, who became president as a workers’ leader in Brazil, takes side with the existing order, we must not deceive ourselves about Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia. It is not the first time we come across the examples of leftism that does not go beyond the boundaries of capitalism. The world has witnessed innumerable cases of bourgeois leftism, such as Kemalism, which presented as leftism the top-down reforms accompanying the establishment of the bourgeois republic and capitalist statism in Turkey, and the “non-capitalist way of development” applied and presented as a left model in the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries. Also the example of Ecevit is to be remembered, who dragged the working class and other working masses into the dead ends of bourgeois order by bloating up his sails with strong left winds blowing before 1980. Latin American countries have seen numerous examples of this type of leftism, populism and Peronism. In these countries countless progressive, leftist, saviour-despot leaders (caudillo) who have held back the rising revolutionary masses within the borders of order through reform promises have passed from the political stage.
Some socialist groups might find our remarks on the processes in Latin America extremely heretical. Besides, it would not be surprising for people like us to be accused of sectarianism or ultraleftism. Because differences between political tendencies become sharp and clear when revolutionary upheavals bring people to crossroads. In terms of the workers’ revolution, what is progressive and what is not depends on where you stand and from which angle you look. It should be kept in mind that whatever the bourgeois socialism call “revolution” means usually mere reform for the revolutionary proletariat. The tactics which amount to halting the revolution from the standpoint of revolutionary Marxism might be considered as the climax of the revolution by petty-bourgeois revolutionism. However, there is a fact proved with many examples encountered in the history of capitalism and revealed one more time with the latest developments in Latin America. The reforms initiated in order to knit the labourer masses around Presidents (or the presidential system that opens the doors for despotic governments) might seem a short term saviour for the poor masses craving for basic needs, in the long run it is the capitalist order that wins.
It is the revolutionary process in Venezuela and Bolivia which was the chief factor to overthrow the pro-American oligarchic right wing bourgeois politicians and bring the grassroots politicians such as Chavez and Morales to power. In other words it is the rebellion of the masses pouring out to the streets with great energy unseen in ordinary periods. Such developments are surely and deservedly source of excitement and happiness for every revolutionary. However, the greatest skill in such historical episodes, is to be able to resist strong winds and insist on a political course of advancing revolutions. Those who advance revolutions and others who push them back can never be taken equal. It is impossible for a revolutionary Marxist to avoid trying to conceive the vital problems that arise in the middle of revolutionary situations.
The most striking problem in Latin American countries where alleged left wing winds are blowing is the nationalist, statist political leaderships blocking the growth of revolutionary situations into revolutions. What actually is happening in these countries now? If you look at the analyses of some left-wing groups, the state control over petrol in oil-rich Venezuela is a momentous revolutionary headway. Similarly, nationalizations in the energy sector by the Bolivian president Morales are also interpreted as significant improvements. It is obvious that the nationalization of energy resources has had bad effects on foreign monopolies. Besides, in some cases this action creates conflicts of interest between left governments in Latin America divided on the basis of nation-states.
Since the Brazilian monopoly Petrobras, which has big investments in energy sector in Bolivia, has lost its privileges as a result of nationalisation without a compensation, cold winds have already started to blow between these two countries. Yet the main point we should not miss is to see who resents Bolivian president Morales because of the damaged interests of Brazilian bourgeois. This person is not other than Lula who, once, was perceived to be the leader of the working class by those socialists who wear themselves out in a quest for a “workers’ own party”. Even this single example reveals class identity of the threat directed on the basis of national interests by leftist presidents in these countries towards the other ones craving for some energy. Also, not to be misled in such kind of issues, it is essential that we know which capitalist powers or capitalist state enterprises have replaced foreign capitalist companies that are expelled from these countries. If we have a look at the Bolivian example we see that Venezuelan capital under “revolutionary” president Chavez have been claimant for the place emptied after the Brazilian monopoly in energy sector. In order to support Morales, Chavez offered partnership for a natural gas pipeline project extending from Venezuela to Argentina. It is also in the agenda that the Venezuelan petrol company Petroleos is about to embark on a large scale energy investment in Bolivia.
In brief, the merciless competition between capital groups, especially on a strategic field such as energy, is going on including these Latin American countries under the rule of leftist presidents. If Iran’s challenge against America with the strength she gets from prospect alliance with China, Russia and India is a fact directly effecting the skirmish today, Chavez’s provoking remarks against the US and his loud support for Iran with postures of a “caudillo” are also in the same nature.
Chavez, as much as standing against America for the national interests of Venezuela, is a “revolutionary” leader who would outdo other rival capitalist powers to protect the Venezuelan capital, when necessary. It has never been seen that nationalist leftism or bourgeois socialism has led the working class to salvation. Contrary to this fact, to carry out a massive Chavez promotion, to pronounce him as number one revolutionary leader on the earth and exploitation of the sympathy on the part of young generations for socialism or of their admiration for figures like Che Guevara to create a Chavez cult is an extremely harmful political attitude we can never approve.
The news that the Latin American countries, which have always been conceived as the backyard of America, are standing against a hegemonic power like American imperialism might sound nice in the first place. However, this situation does not grant any benefits to the working class out of blue. The exciting aspects of the revolutionary processes in Latin America for the working class around the world must be distinguished very clearly from the facts that hinder the advance of the revolution. Despite our criticism might make angry some circles that are trying to gain political praise by merely applauding the revolutionary high tide in Latin America, we have to underline the differences of scope between national interest and class interests. If what you understand from revolution is to be content with defending national interests against one or another imperialist country, then the concrete facts threatening the process of revolution in Latin American countries will surely not be any inconvenience for you. Also, you will feel extremely uncomfortable when these facts are voiced!
No matter which seemingly innocent excuse could be used to hide it, any concession to reformist socialist current will not serve ends other than blurring the revolutionary strategy and revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat. Let us give a concrete example. A comprehensive struggle against imperialism can never be regarded on the same level as opposing foreign capital which would strengthen the local bourgeoisie in the final analysis. Also, contrary to the twists of certain socialists, the latter does not have any characteristics of a transitional gain that would improve the working class struggle towards revolutionary targets. Nationalisation of some foreign companies or enterprises on the basis of national interests would only strengthen nationalism in the sphere of politics and state capitalism in the sphere of economics. In this case, this kind of nationalisations can never be regarded as the same with nationalisations carried out by a workers’ state, which would abolish private ownership over big local or foreign capital.
Let us state a clear fact without twisting. If there were political leaderships equipped with revolutionary Marxism in Latin American countries where revolutionary situations have occurred, their chief task would be advancing organized mass struggle towards breaking the bourgeois state machine. However, what is broken by the leftist presidents in these countries (no matter what their discourse is) proved to be the revolutionary processes themselves, and this is what they are unable to avoid. It is not possible to put an end to the bourgeois rule without touching the bourgeois state machine. When the bourgeois order and capitalism is still alive, nationalisation of some slices of foreign capital has never been a historical or economic gain for the working class. Since it makes no difference in the wage slavery conditions of the working class when an oil refinery belongs to a Venezuelan company rather than an American one, or to this capitalist state enterprise rather than that one.
Some might object our views reminding us of Chavez as a distinct one among all the leftist presidents taking up the accession successively, in so called left belt Latin American countries, suggesting a different interpretation of him. Because some socialists consider Chavez to be more leftist, revolutionary, open to socialism. The same people also claim that the revolutionary process in Venezuela has gone further for this reason. They point at workers’ control carried out in some workplaces as evidence for the case. Yet, in our opinion, what lies behind this type of assessments about Chavez or the process in Venezuela is the conceptions and approaches diverging from revolutionary Marxism over some basic issues such as statism and socialism. Chavez’s long-time admiration for Cuba and some declarations as to taking Castro as a model for himself are assumed by some socialists to be an indication of him being enthusiastic about moving towards socialism.
However, are we going to ignore the very fact that the regime in “socialist Cuba”, which is presented as undisputable, is by no means socialist from a scientific and Marxist point of view? When the revolution of national liberation against American imperialism achieved its success in January 1959, in Cuba, it was not a proletarian revolution and did not bring the working class to power. However, the Cuban revolution overthrowing the detested, oppressive-reactionary oligarchic dictatorship, justifiably aroused a great sympathy and enthusiasm on revolutionary ranks. The Castro government established following the revolution broke with capitalist system after a while under the then world dynamics and the socio-economic structure in Cuba has evolved into a similar bureaucratic regime in the Soviet Union. As a result, like the Soviet Union, which has never been socialist, there is no scientific ground to describe Cuba as the last socialist fortress. The bureaucratic regime in Cuba is in death agony in a world without the Soviet Union and the “socialist block”, whose existence is limited to the life span of president Fidel. Increasing number of leftist presidents in Latin America, such as Chavez who reveals his admiration for Castro, gives some breathing space to Cuba. The present left belt in Latin America resembles “the alliance of the non-aligned”. Yet, it should straightway be stated that this past time alliance was no more than a bourgeois left alliance and in the contemporary world without the Soviet Union “Latin American” left cannot reach, even, up to that level.
Today, it would be as much appropriate to worry about the future of the Cubans because of the aggressive plans of the American imperialism as it would be equally inappropriate to defend the establishment of governments similar to Castro’s in Latin American countries for the interests of the world proletariat. Besides, the situation in Venezuela is far different from the one in Cuba. Today’s Venezuela and yesterday’s Cuba has dissimilar socio-economic structures. In Venezuela bourgeois state machine has not been smashed and capitalism has not been abolished yet. Under these concrete circumstances, it is not convincing to presume that a president’s inclination toward a kind of “socialism” which is limited to mere national developmentalism would make him or his country much more revolutionary than other examples in Latin America. Besides, a workers’ control initiated and spread out by the revolutionary initiative of the working class itself and a limited one that is maintained under a state control which does not belong to the working class cannot be the same.
Statist leftism that has come out in Venezuela and the like does not initiate a mechanism that exceeds capitalism. But by protecting national riches under state control what you have is to implement state capitalism. These practices would not turn the socio-economic structure in Venezuela into “socialism” similar to Cuba. However, the same as in China, it is highly possible that Cuba will open herself to capitalism under bureaucratic centralist political structure and as a result approximate the capitalist Venezuela which is governed by leftist statist government.
While the political developments in Latin American countries necessitate hot debates on this and similar types of issues, what should be said about the vain optimism of some leftist circles who claim that these countries have gone through revolution? Inevitably this reminds us of the historical assessment made by Marks and Engels on the natural inclination of petty-bourgeois to halt the revolution in the middle. Again just as Marks pointed out as a result of the political situation in France in 1848, we can come across various types of leftism from bourgeois socialism to petty-bourgeois socialism. Nevertheless, the class policy that stands for the revolutionary interests of the proletariat, the revolutionary socialism is absent.
Nationalizations in Venezuela or Bolivia do not go beyond capitalism and it does not advance the processes which include in some cases revolutionary tides in these countries towards socialism. While misinterpretations of the developments in these countries by the petty-bourgeois left currents is completely understandable, it is too much to accept the jumping of some self-claiming Marxist, Trotskyist, internationalist groups into this train. Haven’t we had enough experience to understand that the ones who become extremely excited when it comes to national interests, yet speak in a different tone when it is time for the internationalist revolutionary interests of the working class?
There is one way out
It is true that the nationalisations in energy sector in some Latin American countries create annoyance at some foreign capital groups and this attitude steams up the American imperialism. Nonetheless as the Chilean experience under the presidentship of Allende has proven, if you provoke your enemy while at the same time not mobilizing an army to defeat it, you prepare your own defeat with your own hands. You cannot play games with revolution. If the ones who talk about revolution and socialism want to stand by their words, they must follow a proper way to fulfil the resulting tasks on an organizational and strategic level. However some socialist groups including some would-be internationalists have already indulged themselves in the so called “left winds”. With a frivolous attitude, they follow a policy of “saving” the moment. Briefly, there are more than enough reasons for us not to let ourselves be drifted with the flow of the general current but to be anxious about the latest developments in Latin American countries where revolutionary rises occur.
We should not let the working class be confused with the utterances such as “a left wave is gaining strength in Latin America” or “Venezuela is moving towards socialism”. We must carefully examine the content of the much-advertised left wave in Latin America. From the political point of view, this left wave relies on an unprincipled, vague, hollow, clamorous, verbal anti-imperialism (i.e. an anti-Americanism on the basis of defending national interests!). And, from economic point of view there is not a real left cement to integrate these countries. It is solely a defence of national interests against the great power USA by some Latin American countries, including some natural-resource-rich ones such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile, and expansionist ones like Brazil. Such bourgeois alliances that have appeared on these grounds have never been able to transcend national strife. And, most important of all, no “left wave” without resting on organised power of the working masses can advance the class struggle along the line of revolutionary interests of the proletariat.
Another aspect of the issue is to place the developments in Latin America in the general course of affairs in the world. The struggle for hegemony among the imperialist powers is getting serious, aggravated and deepened, which affects the developments in the whole world directly. If these conflicts manifest themselves as a hot imperialist war in the Middle East, then Latin American countries will not be immune from the general danger as they are not, and will not, be living as if in another planet. Not only Turkish, Kurdish or Arab peoples, but all peoples around the world are under the threat of increasing militarism, mounting imperialist conflicts and rising fascism. The counter-revolutionary forces that increase the attacks against the working masses in general are lying in ambush and waiting for the right moment for Latin America. In conclusion, we have to stress that it is not the winds of spring blowing, but we are in the middle of danger.
Actually, the major battle has not broken out yet. What we see today is more like an introduction to a bigger conflict. The US is trying to gain positions over an area as wide as possible, against her principal rivals Russia and China, by means of the war she carries out in the Middle East and Afghanistan and national conflicts she incites. Russia and China have not thrown their full weight yet and they are proceeding quietly but deeply and gaining more strength. Thus they are trying to achieve a stronger position against the USA for the future conflicts. And the EU is a capitalist union whose destiny is undetermined and it is divided on the basis of the competition among the nation-states it includes. Today, the EU, under the pretence of a central power having a say in world politics, only tries to catch up with the situation. Capitalist countries such as Iran, Turkey, and India laying all over the region which is the subject of imperialist re-division are trying to become strong sub-imperialist powers in their surroundings. The answer to the question whether these countries will be on American, Russian or Chinese side will have a direct effect on the course of the imperialist conflict of hegemony.
We should not forget that the American imperialism may fall weakened or even be defeated in a war amid these multidimensional conflicts. Yet the problem is not only the destiny of the US imperialism. The real problem is to remember that unless imperialist capitalist system is overthrown, there will be new imperialist powers to arise as opposed to the decline of the USA. Remember the German imperialism that started the second world war madness ended up with defeat. There is a loser and an winner in every war. But the defeat of one capitalist country and the victory of another has never brought the emancipation of the working class from the capitalist quagmire. While the US, the winner of the second world war, pretended to be the champion of democracy defeating the German fascism, she never hesitated to kill innocent people in Japan with atom bombs.
While the German Nazism’s defeat ended the war of hegemony between imperialist powers in favour of American imperialism, it, without any doubt, had an influence on the working masses’ general struggle of democracy and on the course of history. As for today, it is evident that possible defeats or economic and military enfeeblement that would be suffered by the USA who has gone wild with the crisis of hegemony, will have extensive effects over the world. Neither the former example was able to save the working class and the poor masses from the vicious circle of capitalism, nor will a second one within the same framework be able to have a different result. If we want to avoid being drifted into a political game of “one step forward-two steps back” under the press of capitalism that suffocates human life, we should learn lessons from history and, under today’s concrete circumstances, not be satisfied with the USA’s enfeeblement. It is obvious that we cannot advance working class struggle by a mere anti-Americanism, ignoring the wholeness of world capitalist system.
The days when masses lived under relatively ordinary conditions are over. Nevertheless, because of the lack of organisation of the working masses, the existing situation finds its reflection as a sense of insecurity about future, a widespread fear and social paranoia in their life. While on the one hand, the bourgeois media, i.e. the ruling class’ ideological instrument of war, in turn, keeps imposing violence even on the most unthinkable aspects of life in order to terrorize and suppress masses, on the other hand, it tries to keep them in check within the confines of order with glamorous pictures of capitalism. In fact, capitalism has nothing to offer for the great majority of people who are oppressed and poor. This system has entered into a period of senility where the tendency of its historical breakdown is getting more tangible day after day. Capitalism, with its usurpation of wide working masses’ past gains, destroying their living and working conditions, is galloping towards an “unknown” where the abyss between the rich and the poor is bigger and deeper than ever.
It is known from past experiences that, such periods drag masses into an extraordinarily unstable political atmosphere. Even though there is no other way to overcome crisis but revolution, from the proletariat’s point of view, this reality mirrors itself as counter-revolutionary, fascist assaults in the world of the ruling class. Moreover, revolution and counter-revolution do not come about out of blue. These are political phenomena that develop in life according to the attitude classes take. The bourgeoisie is making a worldwide effort to seize control before the organized power of the proletariat grows. It is not an unavailing attempt to enact repressive laws or disseminate reactionary, racist, fascistic practices. The bourgeois front is preparing for the likelihood of class struggle and they are rallying forces. Unfortunately, the working class lags extremely behind. Yet, this is not an irreversible situation. The solution lies in the working class’ becoming conscious of its great potential power and moving forward to create the revolutionary organization to set this potential into motion.
The Question of Transition and the Transitional Programme
The Question of International