Finland – Punalippu: Revisionism distorts imperialism in the service of counter-revolution
We publish a translation of an article published in the Finnish revolutionary news site Punalippu.
We want to serve the theoretical unification of the anti-imperialist front for the revolution with the following article. We especially criticize the distortion of Lenin’s theory of imperialism by the Greek revisionist Party “KKE”, but in order to go deeper to the subject, we also look further into some similar revisionist scribbles. The special importance of “KKE” for us is due to that today, it is leading the “European Communist Action” (ECA) and is in influential position also theoretically. ECA also has a Finnish member organization: The Communist Labor Party.
Revisionism refers to “changed conditions” as a pretext for negating principles, and this is also what “KKE” and its followers do. Among their core arguments is that colonialism is history and all countries are imperialist – this might sound like a joke, but it is not. The slogans of “KKE” are the “imperialist pyramid”, in which differences between countries are explained by uneven development (and not with relations of exploitation and oppression), and “unequal interdependency” which also obscures the true relations between countries. In criticizing Putinism, they try to smuggle in the understanding that Yankee imperialism would not be the number one enemy of the peoples of the world.
All this is very fitting for a Party which has been willing to sacrifice the life and health of its members to defend the rotten-to-the-core bourgeois democracy of Greece against revolution. For example in 2011, in the midst of the most intense class struggle in Greece, “KKE” stopped the revolutionary people from taking over the parliament and cooperated with the genocidal police force. It tried to cover its action by claiming that the revolutionary masses were fascists. The lie was soon uncovered, because indeed many of the closest friends of “KKE”, the Greek police force, were members of the fascist Party Golden Dawn.
Our critique is focused on the attempt to deny the survival of colonialism, which is not only a most striking revisionist machination, but also the true main question of our topic, the crossroads and crystallization of other questions. This question is important due to how it corresponds to the main contradiction in the world: imperialist superpowers and powers against the oppressed nations. To deny colonialism presents a rosy picture on the development of imperialism and means defending one’s own imperialism, in connection to which we also pay attention to the false conception of the inter-imperialist contradictions, which deviates to “ultra-imperialism” of Kautsky. We will also demonstrate how denying colonialism leads to denying imperialism as a special stage of imperialism. To conclude, we will emphasize how this position is part of the ideological war of the counter-revolution of the world against Maoism – Maoism, the assuming of which is the only way to hold onto Leninism in struggle against revisionism.
Colonialism survives in imperialism – everything else is painting imperialism in bright colors
The basic thesis of “KKE” is that “the capitalist countries in the era of imperialism which have formed a monopoly economic base have entered the imperialist stage.” By this they mean that countries with capitalist monopolies are imperialist countries. This also includes all the oppressed countries, because the bureaucratic capitalism developing in them is monopoly capitalism. “KKE” blabbers outright lies and humbug when they declare that “the colonial system was overthrow[n] and the former colonies acquired their independence”. And, like a over-enthusiastic schoolboy, the general secretary of the revisionists of Sweden, following “KKE”, calls “the idea that some nations are oppressed, while others are doing the oppressing” “very problematic” in his own scribble, and claims that “this is the expected development of capitalism.”
The bourgeoisie is brainwashing the people to believe that colonialism is a thing of the past with its distorting history writing and education system. Commonly, it is claimed that the age of colonialism lasted from the 16th century to the mid-20th century, when the colonial rule allegedly was dismantled (the so-called decolonization) and the colonies were granted formal independence. Part of this same machination is the so-called theory of neo-colonialism, which takes as its point of departure the ending of colonialism (a theory which “KKE” of course does not support, because according to them, oppressed nations are not “neo-colonies” but imperialist countries).
Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the most fitting: “KKE” simply repeats the lie about how colonialism has ended spread by the counter-revolution of the world.
In his works, Lenin often reminds us that the division of nations into oppressing and oppressed is the essence and characteristic feature of imperialism, and Stalin calls this division one of the three principal contradictions of imperialism. For Lenin, the division of the world by the imperialist powers is one of the basic features of imperialism.
In his book “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”, Lenin makes an especially valuable and important note:
“Kautsky’s obscuring of the deepest contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting imperialism in bright colours, leaves its traces in this writer’s criticism of the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination).”
Thus he explains many times in his book which economic, political and ideological grounds lead to that the dispute over colonies becomes more intense and does not cease. He, among other things, points out: “The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies.” This is opposite to what “KKE” & Co. try to claim when they put forward that the development of capitalism would lead to the liberation of the colonies. Lenin also emphasizes that finance capital “is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence”, by which he refers to semi-colonies and other “transitional forms” towards complete colonial dominance, from which of course “finance capital […] derives the greatest profit from.”
“KKE” & Co. are completely unable to explain why imperialism would have developed to opposite direction to what Lenin put forward. They also do not want to openly admit they are in opposition to Lenin, but instead, with schoolboy-like snobbery they try to claim that “this is not at all the way in which Lenin understood his own analysis and it certainly is not the way he wanted others to interpret it.” As if.
On the contrary, in Punalippu, we regularly publish articles which shed light on reality in the oppressed nations. From these articles, a clear image on how imperialism develops bureaucratic capitalism, that is, “capitalism which imperialism develops in the oppressed nations with feodalist or even pre-feodalist features of varying degrees” (PCP), in the oppressed nations. This shows how the development of imperialism goes precisely to the direction Lenin pointed out and not the direction “KKE” & Co. so ardently hope. The reader interested in this subject can read more from the series of articles called “Notes and Materials on Contemporary Peru” we have translated from the publication Nuevo Perú, in which the subject is thoroughly analyzed in the case of Peru from different aspects (parts I, II, III and IIIab, IIIc). Our own production are among others articles on Uruguay (1,2) and Estonia (1,2). In addition to these, the matter is dealt more or less indirectly in many other articles.
Revisionism defending their own imperialists
The most important slogans for “KKE”’s revisionism are “imperialist pyramid” and “unequal interdependency”. Where Marxism sees division to oppressing and oppressed nations, “KKE” sees “unequal development” by which it tries to replace the reality characterized by relations of exploitation and oppression. According to them, “unequal interdependence is predominant in terms of the relations between these states and each country’s influence is determined by its economic, political and military strength and each seeks to represent and advance the interests of “its own” monopolies.” This sophistry might make at least some sense, if the division to oppressing and oppressed nations would not take place before the accumulation of strength. Now – by the logic of “KKE”, which is completely detached from reality – the giant oppressed India would be ahead of small imperialist Finland in the “imperialist pyramid”. Exactly this is what the Swedish fanboy of “KKE” puts forward, noting with an exclamation mark that “Indian capital now controls the automobile industry in Great Britain!” – without bothering to look into the role of Yankee imperialism in this.
When it comes to the concept of “interdependency” used by the “KKE”, it is an especially perverse lie, which is repeated time and time again by the bourgeoisie in different contexts. According to this, the oppressed is not on the mercy of the oppressor, dependent on them, but actually the oppressor is also dependent on the oppressed, on their mercy. Similar turning black into white through shameless pedantry would showcase a lawyer telling the court that actually, in order for there to be theft, there must be something to steal, so actually theft depends on the victim, so actually the thief must not alone be held accountable but one could say that there is “unequal interdependency” between the thief and his victim. This is the kind of bluff and lack of sense revisionism has to offer.
The Swedish apprentice repeats the claims of his Greek master. According to him, “we must speak of the competition within the imperialist hierarchy” which is the same as “imperialist pyramid”. When one should pay attention to the main contradiction in the world, between imperialism and the oppressed nations, this apologist of imperialism tells us to close our eyes and look away: “this is not merely a matter of subordination, but rather reflects the alignment of the weaker with the stronger so as to better accommodate the interests of their respective bourgeoisie.” The essay of this schoolboy becomes tragicomical, when he, attempting hard a serious tone, points out: “While capital is being exported from Sweden to Lithuania, capital is simultaneously being exported from Lithuania to other countries.” It is hard not to hear how this schoolboy attempting the world championship in pedantry is chuckling while writing these words, thinking he has found a convenient loophole in Lenin’s theory.
What is the politics the revisionists are striving for with their machination? They are striving to defend the imperialists closest to themselves. This is only logical. Revisionism is always capitulation to imperialism, and because imperialism is not one but there are many competing imperialisms, capitulation to imperialism always means capitulation to a specific imperialist power or superpower.
If the relation between Sweden and Lithuania is not that of a oppressor and oppressed, but that of two imperialists, then this is like an absolution to the imperialism of the social-democratic people’s home. Actually the Lithuanians, raising against a foreign imperialism, could be accused of narrow-minded nationalism and defending their own bourgeoisie.
It is worse in Greece, where Yankee imperialism is dominant. “KKE”, suffering from Stockholm-syndrome, has decided to take up defending Yankee imperialism. For example, while making a polemic against one revisionist and opportunist alliance supporting Russian imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism, “KKE” ends up denying the hegemony of the Yankees in the world: “In all its statements, the identification of the concept of imperialism with the strongest power of the international imperialist system to date, i.e. the USA, is characteristic. Even when reference is made to other imperialist unions, such as the EU, NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, etc., it is assumed that we are dealing with “US imperial interests”. In this way, as if by magic, the responsibilities and self interests of the bourgeois classes of the rest capitalist states, other than the USA, that participate in these alliances are concealed. Thus, the USA is distortedly presented as an empire of a modern colonial system, where all the states allied to it are its subordinates.” So says “KKE” in their delusional counterargument. Instead, NATO, IMF and the World Bank are indeed tools of US hegemony and only the most hardheaded parrot of Yankee propaganda denies this. It is enough to ask: What would NATO be, if the US left? Exactly. (When it comes to the EU, the comment is at least somewhat to the right direction.)
We do not want to say that collusion and struggle between imperialists would not take place in these organizations. It is a fact we have analyzed on many occasions, especially in the case of NATO and the EU. But on the contrary to the claims of the Greek revisionists, this does not negate the hegemonic role of Yankee imperialism in NATO, IMF and the World Bank, which is the main thing, while the collusion and struggle between the imperialists in these organizations is only at the margins.
“KKE” & Co. also regularly deviate into Kautskyist “ultra-imperialism” which on its part helps conciliation with their imperialist. The theoretician of the “KKE” for example explains: “In addition, the bourgeois class itself chooses the path of ceding sovereign rights e.g. to an imperialist alliance like the EU or NATO, or even to inter-state relations in order to safeguard its more general class interests, to find support and to perpetuate its power.” Thus these revisionists repeatedly talk about “euroatlantic imperialism” for example – a concept which sees the “euroatlantic” imperialist powers as a “block” within which there can be small disputes, but mainly, peace prevails – a concept, which is completely opposite to Lenin’s theory and completely consequent to Kautsky’s theory of “ultra-imperialism”.
Imperialism is a special stage of capitalism
Colonialism, division into imperialist and oppressed nations is a fundamental feature of capitalism after its development into imperialism. Lenin, Stalin and others, who anyone calling themselves “Marxist-Leninist” should respect, have expressed this in very clear and unambiguous terms.
The claim that this division would have disappeared through development while capitalism prevails, is actually a claim that imperialism, as Lenin described it, was not the last stage of capitalism. Perhaps they say that Lenin was right in his time, but now the basic features of imperialism which Lenin lists have partly changed. They may say that in Stalin’s time, imperialism had three fundamental contradictions, but now, one of them (imperialist superpowers and powers against oppressed nations) has disappeared. It means that they put forward a new stage in the development of capitalism – a stage unseen by Lenin and Stalin.
For Lenin, imperialism is the highest and last stage of capitalism, not higher and latest. If it is said that the imperialism of Lenin’s times is succeeded by another stage, this is negated. Thus the characterization of imperialism as dying capitalism, capitalism on the eve of proletarian revolution, is also negated.
This difference is important, because it is not only about if Lenin was correct or not. Moreover, in the basis of this machination is separating the economy of imperialism from its politics. The economic basis of imperialism – finance capital – has remained the same fundamentally, and not even the revisionists of “KKE” try to disagree with this undeniable fact. But instead they claim that on this same basis there could be other politics. Especially by denying colonialism they claim that on the over-hundred-year-old basis of finance capital, on the basis of imperialism, there could be politics without taking colonies or “non-imperialist politics” as Lenin would say. This is precisely what Lenin criticized Kautsky for.
Thus “KKE” surrenders to pious reformist wishes.
Our verdict must be that “KKE” negates whole Lenin’s theory of imperialism. It abandons Marxist principles by referring to “changed conditions”. It is nothing but revising Marxism.
War against Maoism
The revisionist conception is very directly targeted to deny the current main contradiction at world level, that is, the contradiction between imperialist superpowers and powers on the one hand and the oppressed nations in the other. It is not targeted against any random part of a correct and justified political line but specifically the main contradiction at world level. This is essential, because the main contradiction defines the other contradictions, and only by grasping the main contradiction firmly it is possible to present correct politics for the revolutionary transformation of society. This is obvious also in Finland, where the correct leadership of the revolution depends on if it is understood that the Finnish nation with all its classes is an imperialist nation – if through this, the international position of Finland is understood, if the national question is understood also within the borders of Finland, if the splitting of the working class by imperialism in Finland and the correct Marxist tactics in struggle to unite it are understood, etc., etc.
There are two currents operating in the World Revolution: the international proletarian movement, which leads, and the national liberation movements, which are the base. The task is to unite them. The denial of national liberation movements and the democratic revolutions they aspire for, resulting from denying the existence of oppressed nations, leads to leaving them to be led by the bourgeoisie and denying democratic revolutions as a part of the Proletarian World Revolution, because only the proletariat can lead the democratic revolution successfully to victory through its Party.
Thus, if we abandon the oppressed nations, their national liberation movements and the necessity for a new democratic revolution, this leads, first of all, to the perpetuation of imperialist domination in the oppressed nations, which constitute the majority of humanity. What follows is that the oppressed nations remain the reserve of imperialism, which also supports imperialism prevailing in the imperialist nations. The world revolution is negated from all directions, from all sides, and so is also the tactics of the international communist movement, the only Marxist tactics: to go to the oppressed nations, who at world level correspond to the deepest and broadest masses. This is what “KKE” has to offer.
To deny the existence of oppressed nations is counter-revolutionary theory.
And if only it was only theory! Today the supporters of this theory concretely downplay the People’s Wars led by Communist Parties in Peru, Turkey, India and the Philippines. They keep quiet about them or directly deny their existence. They label them ultra-leftist terror or CIA plots. All of these are part of the psychological campaigns of the reaction against revolution. For us, the ongoing People’s Wars are constant propaganda for the revolutionary path. The People’s Wars are on the front lines of the World Revolution and they sow People’s War all over the world.
The supporters of this theory also deny the revolutionary struggle of the peasantry also when it does not yet take place as part of the People’s War. They for example could care less for the poor peasants of Brazil who conquer land with weapon in hand under the banner of Agrarian Revolution as part of the democratic revolution. This is even more sinister, when the peasantry is the most populous class in the world, whose democratic energy – as Lenin said – must be drawn from to the end for the World Revolution.
Revisionists, full of chauvinism, could care less for revolutionary struggles in the world. What should be done according to them? To sacrifice human lives in complicity with genocidal police forces to defend the parliament of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie against revolution.
This is how the ideological warfare of the counter-revolution against Maoism develops. It is not only shameless distortion of Marxist theory but also psychological operations which support and compliment it and even outright repression against revolution.
We see that today, the only way to follow Lenin and to hold onto Leninism is to assume Maoism as the new, third and higher stage of Marxism. Concretely, the thesis of bureaucratic capitalism, which is part of Maoism and was originally put forward by Chairman Mao and which was universalized by Chairman Gonzalo, is necessary to thwart the revisionist attacks against Lenin’s theory of imperialism, which in different ways try to obscure the reality in the oppressed nations.
We hope that this article serves on its part the unification of the anti-imperialist front in Finland under the correct principles and protects the class independency of the proletariat in this front, which it should lead in order to carry out a socialist revolution in Finland as a part and in service to the World Revolution.
