Communist Party of Turkey – Marxist Leninist
November 2024
By referring to the national question that emerged with the free competition process of capitalism and the stage of imperialism and the handling of the national question with the October revolution, we will put forward our views on the approach of the class-conscious proletariat to the national question in today’s world.
As is well known, nations are the product of a certain historical process. At the dawn of capitalism, the desire of the bourgeoisie to unify the internal market stands in a decisive place in the formation of nation states. Nationalization first emerged in Western Europe, and the states that completed the process of nationalization took the form of national states. Thus, while single-nation states took shape in Western Europe, in Eastern Europe and countries such as Russia, multinational states were formed, first politically and then economically dependent under the sovereignty of the first nation to develop. Naturally, these multinational states of the East have been the home of national oppression, national problems, national movements and national conflicts, and they have also been the places where different forms of solutions to this problem have emerged. The oppressed nations, which were late in the process of nationalization, also wanted to have their own national markets. This was where national contradictions and national struggles first emerged, and the grounds for their emergence were based on dominating the national market. This is what is meant when we talk about the starting ground or the economic essence of national struggles.
In this period, the national question, the national struggle was still an internal problem for the state concerned. At that time, “the national struggle was seen as the struggle of the bourgeois classes among themselves”. It was trying to gain national independence in order to seize its national markets. Until the last periods of the era of free competition of capitalism, that is, in the era of bourgeois democracy, the problem was solved democratically. The most recent example of this was the secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905. The people of Norway went to the polls and democratically decided to secede and form a separate state. The Swedish state had to accept the situation.
However, with the development of capitalism to the monopoly stage, that is, with the emergence of imperialism and especially with the imperialist war, the process of free competition and its political process, bourgeois democracy, became a thing of the past. In the words of Comrade Lenin, it was “thrown overboard on the broadside of the ship.” He said that bourgeois democracy corresponded to the process of free competition in capitalism and political reaction to the process of imperialism.
With imperialism and the imperialist war, national problems ceased to be an internal problem and became an international problem concerning many nations. In other words, the oppressed nations not only found themselves confronted with the sovereign nation state, but also with many imperialist powers. Therefore, it became clear that oppressed nations and colonies could not achieve their national liberation without turning against the sovereign nation state and imperialism and breaking away from them… This is the essence of the national struggle. This is what is meant by the political essence of national struggles.
In multinational countries, since the oppressed and colonized nations have not developed capitalism and have been left behind by the dominant nation and the imperialists, class differentiation is not very developed. The majority of the population of these nations are peasants and other petty bourgeois sections. Therefore, the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie constitute the social base of national liberation movements in these countries. By the social core of national movements is meant the peasant question.
Every movement acting on nationalist grounds carries at its core the bourgeois interests and aspirations of the nation concerned. Its horizon is the attainment of a national bourgeois state and first of all the domination of its own national markets. To the extent that it achieves sovereignty, it will pursue similar ambitions to those pursued by other bourgeois states. Of course, starting from this conclusion, one cannot remain indifferent and insensitive to the national question and national movements, just because in the long run, one day, in general, this is what happens and follows such a course. The imperialists and the state of the sovereign nations not only usurp the rights and freedoms of these colonized and oppressed nations, but also inflict unlimited, merciless oppression, persecution, genocide, assimilation and terror on the workers and laborers of these nations and national minorities. Therefore, far from being insensitive to the oppression of the oppressed, colonized and dependent nations, it is necessary to systematically expose the oppression and cruelty of the ruling nation and imperialist states on every occasion. A revolutionary, socialist political enlightenment and sensitivity must be created within the country and internationally.
Without defending the right of nations to secede freely, without propagandizing for the sovereign nations and the imperialists to wash their hands of them, we would be reduced, whatever our intentions may be, to the position of being the dupes of the multinational states and the imperialists. We would be betraying the class-conscious proletarian worldview. At the same time, it would be an indication of indifference to politics. The nationalist, racist and chauvinist policies of the ruling nation and imperialists are not exposed. Without doing this, not only will we not be able to free the proletariat and laborers of the dominant nations from chauvinist thoughts and influences and draw them into the consciousness of democracy and the socialist proletarian class struggle, but also we will not be able to win the trust and support of the oppressed nations and their people, especially the proletarians and laborers of the oppressed nations.
It used to be accepted that the national question, as one of the demands of the bourgeois democratic revolution, would be solved by the bourgeois democratic revolution. After the imperialist war it became clear that the bourgeoisie had lost its progressive role, had become reactionary and would not allow the recognition of the right of nations to secede. As a matter of fact, Tsarism was overthrown by the bourgeois revolution of February 1917 and a government of Mensheviks, social revolutionaries and the liberal bourgeoisie was established, but they did not solve the national question. Not only did they have no intention of solving the national question, they acted with the chauvinism of the ruling nation. For example, although the representatives of the Finnish people, the representatives of social democracy, demanded that the Provisional Government restore to the Finnish people the rights they enjoyed before joining Russia, the Provisional Government did not recognize this demand of the Finnish people and their sovereignty. Nevertheless, they resorted to repression and threats against those nations, such as Finland, Ukraine, Poland, etc., who wanted to secede.
The Bolsheviks did not take part in the Provisional Government formed after the February Revolution. At the April 1917 conference, the Bolsheviks said: “Which side should we take? The side of the Finnish people, of course, because it is inconceivable that any people should be forcibly kept within the framework of a state. By formulating the right of peoples to determine their own affairs, we thus raise the struggle against national oppression to the level of a struggle against our common enemy, imperialism. If we do not do this, we will find ourselves carrying water to the mill the imperialists.”
The RSDIP (Bolsheviks) under the leadership of Lenin, Stalin made the second emphasis in the above quotation on the fact that some of the nations actually seeking secession were in relations with the German, British, French imperialists. This is the reason for the emphasis on “the right of peoples to determine their own sorrows”, i.e. the right to get rid of the bourgeois exploiting classes.
The Bolsheviks’ understanding of the Right of Free Separation was the same after October as it was before the October revolution; that is there was no change in its essence. However, there have been differences in different historical conditions regarding the solution of the problem. And they have always acted with the understanding of acting in the interests of the proletarian revolution…
Indeed, the Russian bourgeois dictatorship was overthrown by the October revolution. However, power was not suddenly seized all over Russia. The revolution had begun in the industrial centers and port cities, especially Petrograd, Moscow, Odessa, Sevastopol, where Russia’s central power was located; its spread to the outskirts was proportional to the defeat of the White Army and took time. The Soviets, led by the Bolsheviks, acted on behalf of the whole of Russia because they had overthrown the central government. But on the other hand, on the one hand, it was waging a civil war with the remnants of the Russian white army, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and on the other hand, it had to fight against the invasions and attacks of 14 countries, led by German imperialism. The 5-year civil war, in which foreign occupation and the white army tried to strangle the socialist revolution, lasted and cost the lives of 7 million people.
Despite these conditions, did not hesitate to declare an end to the policies and practices of oppression and assimilation of nations and national minorities. In accordance with the NCCPR, it was advocated and declared that those nations that wanted to leave could leave freely and those that wanted to stay together could stay together with equal rights and freedoms. They did not prevent any because they did not recognize or like your representatives. Or at least, they did not act with the idea of creating obstacles to the right to secession, in case some of them sided with the imperialists, surrendered, attacked us by playing the role of an outpost, or massacred communists, revolutionaries, laborers, etc. While some had this potential, the right of that nation to secede and form a state was respected and not impeded.
For example, the Council of Soviet People’s Commissars officially recognized the independence of the Republic of Finland on December 31, 1917. And on the same day Lenin delivered the resolution of recognition to the reactionary head of the Finnish government. Comrade Lenin wrote the following: “I well remember the scene in Smolni, when I handed the law to Svinhufvud, the representative of the Finnish bourgeoisie, who had acted like an executioner – which means ‘pig-headed’. He shook my hand in a friendly way, and we complimented each other. How unpleasant it was! But it had to be done, because in those days the bourgeoisie deceived the working class, the people, by claiming that the Muscovites, the chauvinists, the Great-Russians, wanted to crush the Finns. It had to be done,” he said.
A western writer, Stuart Chase, wrote in June 1919 that since the Finnish government took power, it had murdered 16,700 members of the socialist republic in a few days and in cold blood, and sent 70,000 to death camps.
Comrade Lenin referred to Marx and Engels’ approach to the national question. He says that they “demanded the separation of Ireland from England”, an unresolved national question in the age of capitalism’s free competition, and that they “educated the workers of England in a truly international spirit” by putting forward such a demand, “even though federation might come after separation”, thus emphasizing the importance of acting in the class interest of the proletariat in all circumstances.
Again, he points out that while Marx supported the Polish and Hungarian national movement, he opposed and did not support the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs because they played the role of “outposts of Tsarism”, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe. In this emphasis, he exemplifies that not every movement can be supported regardless of its nature, regardless of the role it plays…
Just as the revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is relative and specific, so is the reactionary character of certain national movements relative and specific. In the conditions of imperialist oppression, they were of the opinion that the revolutionary character of national movements did not necessarily require the presence of proletarian elements in the existence of a democratic basis for the movement.
Comrades Lenin and Stalin not only laid the theoretical foundations of their world view on the national question, but also showed how the question should be handled in a country like Russia, which is a prison of nations and peoples, and how to solve the national question in practice by realizing the proletarian socialist revolution. At the same time, they not only inspired, encouraged and supported the liberation struggles of the oppressed, dependent and colonized nations from the ruling nations and imperialists, but also welcomed their struggle for independence and made them feel that they would not leave them alone as long as they stood against imperialism.
They attached great importance to the alliance of the national liberation movements in the oppressed countries with the proletarian class movement of the western countries and to their becoming allies of the revolution. They acted with the importance and awareness that this alliance would accelerate the overthrow of imperialism and the ruling classes in the colonial and semi-colonial dependent countries. They stated that the effort and success in this direction mainly rests on the shoulders of the communist movement.
Lenin and his party did not look down on the liberation movements of the oppressed nations, neither in the intoxication of the success of the revolution, nor in the arrogance of the great nation. Nor did they look for the criterion of being merely revolutionary. They looked at it according to whether it struck a blow to imperialism and political reaction. Therefore, they rejoiced in their rebellion against imperialism and its local footholds, supported and encouraged them to strike a blow.
For example, before the Revolution, in 1913, in his article “The Awakening of Asia”, he wrote: “… China today is a bubbling hotbed of political activity, a vital social movement and a democratic breakthrough. After the 1905 movement in Russia, the democratic revolution spread throughout Asia: Turkey, Persia, China, and in British-ruled India, too, the agitation is growing.
An important development was the spread of the revolutionary movement to the Dutch dominated East Indies, Java and other Dutch colonies.
For one thing, a democratic movement is developing among the masses in Java; a nationalist movement has emerged with Islam as its flag… (abb.)
“… the proletariat of the European countries and the young democracy of Asia, with full confidence in its own strength and unshaken faith in the masses, are advancing to take the place of this degenerate and corrupt bourgeoisie.” (Lenin. National Liberation Movements in the East – NLD.). And a month later, in his article “Backward Europe and Forward Asia”, he expressed a similar joy.
After the October Revolution:
“The struggle of the Afghan Emir for the independence of Afghanistan, in spite of the royalist character of the Emir and his followers, is objectively a revolutionary struggle, because it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism…” (Stalin), and supports this movement “Whereas during the imperialist war the struggle of the sharp democrats, “socialists”, “revolutionaries” and republicans, such as Krenski and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Cleynes, was a reactionary struggle, because its aim was to mask, consolidate and make imperialism victorious.
“For the same reason, the struggle of the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intelligentsia for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois character of the leadership of the Egyptian national movement. Whereas the struggle of the British workers’ government for the maintenance of the dependent state of Egypt is a reactionary struggle, in spite of the proletarian origin and proletarian character of the members of this government, in spite of their being ‘for’ socialism.” (Stalin).
“I am not even talking about the national movements of the larger colonial and dependent countries, such as India, such as China, whose every step on the road to liberation, even if it does not quite conform to the requirements of formal democracy, is a ramming blow against imperialism, that is to say, is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.” (Stalin) The approach of the masters of Marxism has generally been along this axis.
If we evaluate today’s communist and revolutionary movements in the specific context of our subject, it is obvious that they have serious shortcomings.
At the time of the masters of Marxism, in 1950, there were 58 states in the world. Today there are 193states recognized by the imperialist UN. The technological possibilities of the period of the masters of Marxism are incomparably more advanced than today’s technological possibilities and access to information. Despite this, it is clear that we are inadequate in mastering the concrete developments in the world. It is difficult to say that we know enough about the situation of colonial, semi-colonial, dependent nations and national minorities in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Without objective knowledge of the national and class situation there, it will be difficult to analyze and approach it correctly. We may not know the situation all over the world, but more important than this is the question of how we evaluate and approach these movements as an understanding. The extent to which we correctly evaluate the places we “know” and the current situation is revealed by our political and practical approach.
Again, it is another fact that the development and progressive, revolutionary struggle of both the oppressed, dependent national movements and the working class and working people’s movements have been insufficiently processed and propagandized.
Palestine and the Kurdish National Liberation Struggle:
The most obvious current example is the approach to the Kurdish and Palestinian national liberation struggles.
The class-conscious proletarian and revolutionary movements of the imperialist countries must on every occasion call for “their” imperialist states to get out of the colonies, the oppressed countries and their territories, to end their oppression, to respect their right to determine their own future, to respect their right not to interfere in their internal affairs, and they must systematically propagandize in this direction, raise the level of consciousness and sensitivity of the proletariat and working people, and ensure the mutual trust and support of the broad working people of the oppressed countries.
In the same way, the class-conscious proletarian and revolutionary movements of the ruling nations of the multinational countries dependent on imperialism or semi-colonial countries, dependent on imperialism, must, on every occasion, systematically propagandize and agitate for the bourgeoisie of “their” ruling nations to put an end to the oppression of the colonized and oppressed nations, to get out of their national territories, to put an end to occupation and annexation, respect their national rights and freedoms, including the right of self-determination, that is, the right to secede and form a separate state. To the extent that it systematically does this on every occasion, it can break the influence of the racism and chauvinism of the ruling nation, raise the level of consciousness and sensitivity of the working class and toiling masses of the people. To the extent that it does this and to the extent that its concrete practice is in accordance with this, it can win the trust and support the workers and laborers of the oppressed nation and minorities. It can draw them to the class-conscious proletarian line and enable them to act together, or at least in solidarity, against common class enemies.
Both in imperialist countries and in countries where there are sovereign nations dependent on imperialism, those who do not carry out propaganda and activities in this direction or who stay away from it are under the influence of “their” sovereign nation chauvinism. It means that they have not broken away from the nationalist, racist, chauvinist, occupying, annexing, imperialist-minded point of view of the ruling classes of “their” imperialist and sovereign nation.
Before the establishment of the Turkish republic, the Ottoman Empire, like the Russian Empire, was an occupying, annexing, prison of nations and minorities…
As a result of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and disintegrated. The Republic of Turkey was founded on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. During the foundation years of the Republic of Turkey, there were 5 nations within its borders, Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, Greek, Arab… . After the establishment of the Turkish state, the 1915 Armenian genocide policy of the “Unionists” of the Ottoman period was continued and Armenians ceased to be a nation. The Greeks were de-nationalized through massacres, exile and “exchange”. The Arab nation was de-nationalized through oppression, exile to neighboring countries and systematic assimilation. Turks and Kurds were left behind. The Kurds have been subjected to genocide and massacres 30 times, and despite frequent and ongoing systematic assimilation, they continue to exist as the only oppressed nation that has not been eliminated as a nation. The Turkish nation is the dominant nation. It holds the state in its hands. Apart from the Kurdish nation, there are dozens of oppressed national minorities. National minorities, including the Kurdish nation, are denied any rights and freedoms and are subjected to systematic oppression and assimilation.
The Turkish state, due to its structure, education and cultural formation, shapes society as Turkish racist with the ideology of Kemalism. Naturally, the revolutionary movement also comes from this social formation. Some revolutionary parties and organizations are still not completely free from the influence of Kemalism. Therefore, on the national question in general and on the Kurdish national question in particular, it is seen that to one degree or another they are influenced by the state’s point of view.
Let alone systematically exposing the national oppression, massacres and brutal attacks of the sovereign nation state on every occasion, with the share of the systematic oppression of the state, reformist legal parties and some parties and organizations that carry out illegal activities, whose names are “communist”, “socialist”, “revolutionary”, “workers” party, are on the same ground with the sovereign nation perspective and with various “concerns” They do not even want to appear on the side of the Kurdish national movement.
Others continue to confuse the Right to Secede Freely (i.e. the right of nations to secede and form separate states) with the right of peoples to determine their own future (i.e. the right of peoples to make a revolution), failing to grasp that both concepts have different contexts and are the correct solution in different historical conditions.
Some of them understand anti-imperialism as anti-US or equate it with anti-US, while in the past they considered Saddam Hussein, Hafez Bashar al-Assad, M. Gadaffi etc. as anti-imperialist and supported them, they do not support the PKK, the national movement of an oppressed nation, or they cannot explain that. Likewise, while it sees and supports states and governments such as Venezuela, Iran, etc. as “anti-imperialist”, it does not support the liberation movement of a nation that is waging a struggle against the current state, which is the “common enemy” of the country in which it is located, does not make alliances and is afraid of being seen with it.
In Turkey and in the international arena, a similar, if not identical, approach is evident in the approach to the Palestinian national liberation struggle or the Palestinian resistance that has been going on for the last year.
We will not go into the historical process of the Palestinian national struggle, but we would like to touch upon the approaches to the genocidal war of Israeli Zionism against the Palestinian nation in general and Gaza in particular, which has been going on since October 7. Some revolutionary movements in Turkey and around the world have errors and shortcomings both in their ideological and political approach and in their practical solidarity.
First of all, Israel is a Zionist state that founded on Zionism, has possessed the land known as Palestine with an aggression that does not recognize borders, rules, etc., and is constantly trying to expand it, is in an unlimited aggression, and moreover, a Zionist state that openly declares its ambitions by calling many countries of the region “the promised land for us”. On the other hand, there is an oppressed, oppressed Palestinian nation that has systematically lost its land in its homeland where it has lived for generations, through genocide, massacres, war and aggression, a significant part of the survivors of the massacres have been deported to other countries, forced to migrate, and those who are forced to “live” in lands cut off from each other and under the threat of annihilation at any moment, unable to plan for the future, oppressed, made refugees in their own homeland and in a kind of imprisonment. In fact, for every 5 million Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories today, there are about three times as many Palestinians scattered all over the world.
In this picture, there is also the resistance of the Palestinians against occupation and annexation for decades, which enjoys great respect and support among the peoples of the world. While Israel was eliminating the Palestinian territories step by step with its military attacks and illegal Jewish settlers, on October 7, 2023, 14 resistance organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc. jointly organized a major operation in the territories occupied by Israel. Immediately after this operation, which they called the Aqsa Flood, the Israeli state launched a massive genocidal attack on Gaza.
In the very same hours, the US, Britain and Western imperialists declared that they were on Israel’s side and gave their full support, and the very next day, the presidents, heads of republics, prime ministers, heads of state of Western imperialists such as the US, Britain, Germany, Canada, France, Holland, Greece, etc. went to Israel and declared to the world that they offered their highest support and were behind Israel. They entered a race to support Israel with aircraft carriers, intelligence ships, all kinds of weapons, technical weapons, equipment and material support.
Israel and the US, British and other Western imperialists have done their best to distract the attention of the peoples from the Palestinian question, from the fact that Operation Aqsa Flood was carried out by 14 Palestinian resistance organizations and from the genocidal war launched by Israel in response. In this way, the pain, love, respect and support that the imperialist and Zionist persecution of the oppressed and oppressed Palestinian nation and the resistance against it have created in the hearts of the peoples of the world have been tried to be forgotten and erased. And in this, especially in the days immediately following October 7, they succeeded to a certain extent. In fact, in such a critical situation, some revolutionary organizations could not develop a correct attitude against the intense attack and exposure of the imperialists. Many revolutionary organizations distanced themselves from grasping the essence of the problem with political discourses such as “Hamas is a terrorist organization”, “Hamas is a fascist terrorist organization”, “it commits massacres”, “it serves Israel by preparing an environment for the massacre of its people”, “it provoked Israel” and “it invited genocide”, “it receives support from Iran”, “it is an organization created in the laboratories of US imperialism and Israeli Zionism” etc.
Such approaches are seriously flawed:
First, the October 7 Operation Aqsa Flood is a revolutionary action against the occupying Zionist state of Israel. The images served to the world by the media outlets of Israel and imperialist centers immediately after the action have no connection with reality. To date, international independent organizations and media members have revealed that these images are lies and distortions. There are even clear statements from Israeli civilian survivors on this issue. The Joint Operations Room of the Palestinian resistance organizations that participated in this action clearly stated that the attack on October 7 targeted Israeli military positions and aimed at capturing Israeli soldiers to pressure the Israeli authorities to release thousands of Palestinians in a prisoner swap.
Israel and the imperialists, which we personally know how “sensitive” they are about the civilian population, have directly identified and publicized the massacre of 364 civilians at a music festival near Gaza by Israeli military helicopters (Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz newspapers). Israeli witnesses have also confirmed that Israeli army raids and military operations killed many Israeli prisoners and their captors. It was also confirmed by the Israeli state, which reduced the number of soldiers and civilians killed in the operation from 1,400 to 1,200, and that the bodies allegedly burned to death were those of Palestinian fighters, not Israelis.
We Marxist Leninist Maoists make all the calculations and act accordingly so that civilians are not harmed in a revolutionary move. It is not possible for a movement fighting for the liberation of the people, for a classless world, to tolerate harm to the people. War also has/should have its own rules. We clearly state that we are against any kind of damage done to the people, whether intentionally or unintentionally. However, this must be based on revolutionary, democratic, independent sources, not on false stories that are being dumped on us from imperialist sources. Secondly, harm to the civilian population alone is not sufficient data to evaluate an action or movement as counter revolutionary.
It is unacceptable for revolutionary, democratic sectors and organizations to “accept” the images served by the Zionist occupying Israeli state and imperialist media organizations without questioning them, and accordingly to approach the October 7 Operation Aqsa Flood with a distance, to put it mildly. This is not to say that some mistakes were not made during the operation, but it has been made public many times by all resistance organizations that this was not the aim, that it was an operation aimed at military targets. At this point, it was/should have been the Palestinian resistance front, which includes organizations that are closely related to international communist and revolutionary organizations, not Israel.
Secondly, when discussing the genocidal attacks of October 7 and its aftermath, the main point is not/should not be the question of Hamas and the nature of Hamas. It is clear that this operation is not only about Hamas. But this is not the main issue either. It is a reality that Hamas is the most powerful and militarily equipped organization among all the organizations fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian territories from the Israeli occupation. However, the fact that Hamas originated from the Muslim Brotherhood during its establishment, that it committed some crimes during the conflict with the PLO and other Palestinian resistance organizations, and that it is an Islamic movement does not change the fact that it is an organization fighting against the occupation of the Zionist state of Israel. In the Middle East, where Islam is dominant, it is a reality that resistance organizations feed on this society and rise on this ground. It is in accordance with the nature of things that such organizations gain strength and come to the fore in conditions where the world communist and revolutionary movements are in decline, disorganized, discredited in the eyes of the peoples, etc. As a matter of fact, the fact that it is an Islamic movement does not mean that this movement cannot wage a struggle for national liberation or that it is not worthy of it or even has no right to it.
It is absurd for anyone who can think objectively, let alone revolutionaries and communists, to equate Hamas or Islamic Jihad organizations with anti-people organizations such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, as another piece of imperialist propaganda. The comparison between organizations that resist the occupation within their own national borders for the right to self-determination and these organizations, which have mastered anti-people hostility, is related to how much they have been influenced by the ideological bombardment of the imperialists.
Making discourses such as “terrorist organization”, “fascist terrorist organization”, etc. against Hamas, but not against the imperialists and Zionists who drench the world in blood, is an approach that does not stand on class and political grounds.
In evaluating the October 7 Operation Aqsa Flood and the resistance in Gaza, it is important for Maoists to ask the following questions in order to reach the right conclusion: Is this resistance of the Palestinians aimed and calculated to strengthen imperialism in general and its most loyal base in the region? Has it developed with this calculation or is it aimed at preserving its existence and achieving its national liberation? Is this resistance to win the right to self-determination and liberate their land from occupation? And who will be strengthened by Palestinian success and who will be weakened or dealt a blow?
After October 7, Israel moved to expand its occupation by massacring tens of thousands of people. From this point of view, it cannot be the communists’ approach to condemn the October 7 Operation Aqsa Flood. It is possible that a national movement or a class movement can be defeated, in which case should one learn from defeats and prepare for another resistance, or should one act with the approach and mood of Plakhanov, who said “we should not have taken up arms” etc. after the 1905 defeat? The issue must also be looked at from this point of view…
In summary, we must carry Comrade Lenin’s excitement and hope for the awakening in Asia, the hope and excitement that the sparks of national liberation struggles in the oppressed, colonized and dependent countries will develop and trigger each other, that the struggles in these countries will integrate with the class movement of the west and affect each other, and that the proletarian revolutions will converge and succeed. We must internalize Lenin and Bolshevism and embrace its ideals and mood…
There is no reason for despair and pessimism… The historical conditions in which we find ourselves today are reminiscent of the years before the October Revolution. It should not be forgotten that the October Revolution was born because of the conditions aggravated by the war. In this period when the imperialist war drums are rising, if the war cannot be prevented by the efforts of the revolutionary forces, the imperialist war will lead to revolutions because it will ripen the conditions. As long as the subjective forces act with the awareness and responsibility of this and take courage!