Volume 3, No. 1, January 2002

In the light of the Sept. 11 events and the war on Afghanistan a number of questions have been thrown up within Marxist-Leninist circles. The questions basically revolve around the analysis and assessment of the forces that are pitted against the US establishment; the forces aligned against it in Afghanistan; the attitude of the communists towards these forces; and the policies to be adopted in the given situation, to deepen the worldwide struggle against imperialism in general, and US imperialism in particular.

Regarding the brutal, inhuman, and terrorist nature of US imperialism, there are no doubts. That the Sept.11 and other attacks is a result of these policies alone, is not debated. Not just the Marxists, but also even various shades of liberals have most eloquently portrayed this. So also, the US aggression on Afghanistan has been opposed not only by the Marxists, not only by various shades of liberals, but even by many reactionary governments. Opposition to this aggression too is not debated. What is debated is the nature of the opposition to the US.

The imperialists and the reactionaries throughout the world call it a ‘war against terrorism’. It is portrayed as the cruelest force on earth. And on the pretext of fighting this ‘evil’ outright murder and aggression are being justified, and the rule of even their own bourgeois law is being negated. A worldwide fascist terror is being unleashed in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’.

In such a situation, what should be the stand of the proletariat?

Any phenomena, whether it is terrorism, fundamentalism, etc., must be seen in its inter-relationship with other factors, and not in isolation. It is only then that one can get an objective view of events unfolding in the world. Neither fundamentalism nor terrorism should be seen in abstraction, from some purist angle, but in relation to the class forces at play at the international plane.

Second, all phenomena must be seen from a proletarian class viewpoint, as opposed to the bourgeois viewpoint. Within the bourgeois approach, there exists the imperialist/fascist viewpoint (best represented by the Bush/Blair gangsters); there also exists the liberal/pacifist viewpoint (best represented by the anti-globalisation type NGOs). The proletariat differs from both, and should guard against falling into the trap of the latter, which sounds rational, and is also pitted against certain aspects of imperialism.

Third, while seeking to resolve problems, one should, amongst the maze of contradictions, seek out the principle contradiction, and see all other contradictions in relation to this.

Fourth, a clear line of demarcation must be drawn between the oppressed and the oppressor. This should not be diffused, as is the method of the liberal. A critical approach to some of the negative aspects of various anti-US forces should not act to blur this sharp line of demarcation.

And finally, while determining tactics at a given moment, the proletariat must specifically target the principal enemy, seeking to build a broad front against it, under the leadership of the communist party. In this, alliances must be built with all progressive forces and potential allies, and also contradictions within the enemy camp must be skillfully utilized.

Now, utilising the dialectical materialist approach, let us try and apply it to the problems unfolding in the world, which have a direct bearing on the Indian sub-continent. But, before doing that let us first try and understand the term ‘terrorism’ and ‘anarchism’ from a Marxist viewpoint.

Anarchism and Terrorism

Bakunin, the first exponent of anarchism, argued that the working class should not build a new state power after smashing the existing one, but must abolish the state itself. The Anarchists were of the view that through acts of individual assassinations and terrorism the system would collapse. They considered individuals to be the real heroes and not the masses. They say that the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. (Marxism maintains, on the contrary, that the emancipation of the masses is the principle condition for the emancipation of the individual.) In the early twentieth century, anarcho-syndicalists believed that militant trade unionism (i.e. combining economic struggles with terrorist actions) would evolve into revolution.

Marxists have always opposed this philosophy (and organizational methods) of anarchism and terrorism as the means of destroying the enemy. They never opposed acts of terror as a part of overall warfare (See Lenin’s Guerrilla War) and the need to counter white terror with red terror.

History has shown that it is the reactionaries that have time and again unleashed white terror against all those who have sought to fight or oppose them. The numerous examples of US terror all over the world, is known to all. The people are bound to react and rebel against this terror. And if the communist party is weak and unable to lead the anti-imperialist struggle, the opposition to imperialism can take any form, including acts of terror. All the present acts of terror by the people, fundamentalist or otherwise, are nothing but a reaction to the inhuman atrocities of imperialism and their agents throughout the world.

Though Marxists are theoretically opposed to the anarchists, one often finds that they fight heroically against the enemy. The anti-British movement witnessed heroic acts by terrorists and their organizations, like those of Bhagat Singh, Kalpana Dutt, etc. Even today, many of the more militant anti-globalisation groups have some kind of anarchist thinking. Though their philosophy and tactics are incorrect these still play a positive role in the struggle against imperialism. So also the terrorists of the religious type, as long as they target the main enemy — the imperialists and the fascists — they too play some positive role.

Do not Equate Violence of Oppressor & Oppressed

A distinction must be drawn between the violence of the oppressor and that of the oppressed. If both resort to terror, to equate (and condemn) both equally would amount to mere formal logic, devoid of a class content. As long as the oppressed chiefly target the main enemy (and not another community), then their actions are just, however wrong may be their methods.

It is the horrors of US policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, that has resulted in the hatred for the US establishment amongst the masses generally, and amongst the people of the Arab countries in particular. The masses are crying out to fight their tormentors — but with the setback of the communist movement and the impotency of the revisionists, there has been no one to lead them. So, when the Islamic fundamentalists picked up the gun against the Israeli/US combine, it is no wonder that the masses flocked to them.

Now, at any given moment there is a need to single out and target the principle enemy. Generally, it can be said that the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and people is the principal contradiction in the world. Today, of the imperialists, it is US imperialism that is the number one enemy of the world’s people. So the attacks on the two major citadels of US imperialist power — its giant war machine run from the Pentagon; and its financial might, of which the two WTC buildings were at its very core — represent a blow to US imperialism’s image of invincibility. It was a reaction to decades of humiliation, oppression, exploitation and outright terror faced by the masses.

It is imperative for any progressive to emphasise the fact that after the attacks on the US financial and military power centers, it resulted in the humbling of US prestige and its big-brother attitude. One genuinely condoles the death of the many citizens killed in the strikes on the WTC; but stress that the issue of civilian deaths virtually got relegated to the background — what has come prominently to the forefront is the question of the daring attacks on America’s military prestige, resulting from the ability to attack and destroy the sky-kissing WTC and the well fortified Pentagon. All the war preparations and propaganda blitz against Osama Bin Laden and his hosts, the Taliban, are closely related to the stark fact of the political and military humiliation suffered by the giant US imperialists at the hands of the Islamic forces, which are absolutely incomparable to the US’s military and financial strength. Certain political parties, like the BJP, the CPI (M) and even some ML groups highlight the killings of so many civilians in the attacks on the WTC. They in actual fact turn a blind eye to the preponderant aspect of humiliation and defeat suffered by the USA. Right now what is at issue is not the death of innocent civilians, what is of even more importance today is the dwarfing of the US image as an invincible and indomitable power.

The terror unleashed by US imperialism is unjust; the reaction to it, is just.

Attitude to Islamic Fundamentalism

With the policies of globalisation the imperialists, specifically US imperialism, has launched a massive attack on the people’s of the world. Particularly the people of the oppressed nations are the major sufferers. The neo-colonial attack has been ruthless and all encompassing — economic, political, cultural, ideological and military. With the current recession, this attack has intensified.

This relentless exploitation and humiliation has created a great sense of alienation amongst the oppressed. With the setback in communism, which could have provided the real alternative, the masses had no option but to turn to ethnicity, religion, etc. to assert their self-respect and their sense of identity. And when the Islamic fundamentalists also picked up the gun against their tormentors, religion and anti-US sentiments became a potent mix throughout the Islamic world. It is the setback of the communists and the treachery of the revisionists that became the breeding ground for anti-US Islamic fundamentalism, as also of the varied other ethnic trends of the oppressed. In addition, in the 1980s the US themselves promoted Islamic fundamentalism in its contention with the USSR and as a bulwork against communism. Both these factors were the chief cause for its present groth.

As long as the fundamentalists target the main enemy as the chief content of their struggle, they play a positive role in the struggle against US imperialism and their running dogs. The Al Qaeda and most of the other Mujaheedin forces chiefly target the US establishment or their agents, like the Israeli and Indian governments. Laden’s network has targeted American embassies and their citadels of power in New York and Washington. The Arab Mujahideen chiefly target the Israeli Zionists. The Kashmiri groups chiefly target the Indian State. The Islamic Ulema in India has even called for a boycott of US and British goods, with the slogan "Be Indian, Buy Indian". This is the positive aspect of all these forces.

The negative aspect is that most of these forces are feudal in their approach, representing either feudal, bourgeois (more particularly trading) or petti-bourgeois interests. This is their class character. It is often argued that because of their feudal character, they are untouchables, as they will replace the existing regime with a more horrific system, as did the Taliban. But, if alliances are to be drawn only on the end outcome of a particular struggle, then no alliances are possible, with any other force except those of the proletariat. As today, it is only the proletariat that can successfully lead the struggle against imperialism. Even the numerous anti-globalisation groups, with their anarchist tendencies have no alternative to the existing bourgeois/imperialist system. If such were the arguments even Mao and the CPC should never have aligned with such a feudal, pro-imperialist and counter-revolutionary force as Chiang Kai Sheik.

The point is, that as long as these forces target the US establishment, they have a dual character: first, they are reactionary as they have a feudal character; second, they have a role to play in the struggle against the number one enemy of the world’s people. One has to ally with the second aspect, while exposing the first.

Besides, religion has never been something very pure. It is always linked to some politics of the day — sometimes it plays a positive role, otherwise negative and even fascist. This is the objective reality, even though from a Marxist viewpoint, one sees religion as nothing but the ‘opium of the masses’. So, in the various social reform movements within Hinduism(eg. Charvakas, Lokayatas, Buddhism, bhakti movement, Kabir, Guru Nanak, etc.), in the rise of Protestantism against Catholic religion during the birth of capitalism, etc. religion was linked to the progressive trends of the time. Today the BJP’s Hindu chauvinism, the Catholicism of the fascists that kill abortion clinic doctors, the Zionism of the Israeli rulers are no less fundamentalist than those of the Islamic type. In addition, these religions are strongly linked with the worst type of imperialist and fascist rulers, while much of the Islamic trend has taken an anti-US turn. A distinction must be drawn in the various types of fundamentalism, and not see them in isolation, or in the abstract. Particularly it must be seen in its relation to the State and the various political trends at the time. It should not be equated with the same brush. Today, some of these are tools of the fascists and imperialists, while others are often a reaction to it.

Target the Principle Enemy

The point here is that at any given moment it is necessary to target the principal enemy. It is not correct tactics to hit out in all directions If the principal enemy at any given moment is not clearly defined, and the class basis of the alliance against it not clearly established, one’s tactics are bound to be clumsy, swinging from left sectarianism to tailism.

So, for example, in Afghanistan, with Soviet imperialist aggression, the principle contradiction would have been that between the Afghan people and the aggressor (and their puppets within the country). At that time all forces fighting the aggressors, most of them led by war-lords and backed by the US, had to be united into a patriotic front. The strength of the communist party in the country would determine the nature of that front. Once the aggressors were thrown out, the principle target changed, focusing on the feudal and semi-feudal forces, led by the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. Today, once again with foreign (US) aggression, the principle target would have changed, focusing on the aggressors and their local puppets. All forces fighting US aggression in Afghanistan play a positive role in the worldwide struggle against US imperialism. Today, the defeat of the US forces in Afghanistan is not only a key factor for the progress of the Afghan nation and people, it is an extremely important factor to stem the planned aggression of the US in other countries of the world. With victory in Afghanistan, the US has openly stated it plans intervention in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and 50 to 60 countries around the world. Getting bogged down (or defeated) in Afghanistan, will, to some extent, stall the advance of the US military terror machine to other countries of the world. It is shortsighted to negate the significance of the Afghan resistance, no matter how feudal it may be, in the overall struggle against US imperialism. If the US and their puppets are kicked out, the principle target within Afghanistan will once again be against the feudal and semi-feudal forces.

It is often argued that the Sept.11 attacks would have a negative impact in the ongoing anti-globalisation movement. But the facts show that, though its focus may have, to some extent, changed into an anti-war movement, it has only gained in strength. The massive anti-war demonstrations in all countries of the world (not only the Muslim countries) is an indication of the growth of this movement. These demonstrations have spread throughout Europe and America from the big cities, to the small towns and campuses throughout the country. Not only that, it is reported that in the USA even large sections of the apolitical masses are being drawn into politics with the attack, wanting to know as to why so many people hate the US. There is a growing awareness, which is, of course, being fueled by peoples’ worsening living conditions, due to the recession.

So today, with the US hell-bent on aggression around the world, in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’, there is need to unite all forces against the US offensive, as part of the wider anti-imperialist front. While uniting, the communists must unceasingly seek to win over the masses under the influence of the fundamentalists, anarchists, environmentalists, etc, to a consistent anti-imperialist proletarian viewpoint, by bringing out the limitations of the other class forces.

<Top>