J. V. Stalin on Leninist Anti-Imperialism

This selection from Joseph Stalin’s lectures on The Foundations of Leninism is worth thinking about when evaluating such questions as whether or not proletarian revolutionaries should support anti-imperialist governments or liberation struggles, such as the Iranian government or the Afghan national resistance, which are not led by the proletariat or oriented towards socialism:

Stalin and Mao force the imperialist powers to sign a peace treaty: detail from Diego Rivera's "Nightmare of War, Dream of Peace", 1952

‘”The various demands of democracy,” writes Lenin, “including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small part of the general democratic (now: general socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole, if so, it must be rejected” (see Vol. XIX, pp.257-58).

This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements-if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement.

The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

‘Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, “not in isolation, but on a world scale” (see Vol. XIX, p. 257).’

One response to “J. V. Stalin on Leninist Anti-Imperialism

  1. Those who you call the Afghan national resistance are the most reactionary fundamentalists created by the CIA. They are Taliban who are killing innocen Afghans as well as Americans on the order of their bosses at the notorious ISI of Pakistan. At the moment it cannot be said that the people of Afghanistan have raised against the US occupiers. Taliban are not anti-imperialist and are not fighting for the independence of the country but for establishing an anti-people theocratic government at the behest of their Pakistani masters. As a matter of fact they equate democracy and nationalism with infidelity! They have proved their savage nature when were ruling the ill-fated Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. I am not at all against Stalin, but I am of the opinion that his famous quote on Emir Amanullah has been misunderstood by some Marxists. If he was al;ive, were he advocating the murderer Taliban or the criminal regime of Iran? Lenin was supporting national movements which were not only against imperialists but against local reactionary dregs as well.We should remember that Lenin is emphasizing on the need for a struggle against pan-Islamism and the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements (e.g. Taliban) in backward countries.
    Supporting the Taliban means betraying the people of Afghanistan and a true anti-imperialist struggle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s