ANTI-IMPERIALISM OR NATIONAL NARCISM?
Türkçe English Deutsch Italiano Français Ελληνικά Kurdî Español ANTI-IMPERIALISM OR NATIONAL NARCISSISM? A State of the Left on the Right; 'Anti-imperialism that has no Problem with Capitalism' We have written our introductory article on how the left should be defined, independent of the definition of the right. on the premise that we cannot do this. We have argued that to do so would be to give up It should be emphasised that it is essential for an accurate determination of the political positioning that gives direction. This to express that we are passing through a stage where those who are literally on the right define themselves as the left would be correct. In this article, we will argue that the subjects who define themselves on the left are essentially conducting politics on a right-wing ground. We will try to explain our claim. It is possible to base this claim on two pillars. Here, this one of its pillars is a Western-type culture and politics that flourishes in liberalism. It must be emphasised. This type of rightism, with its politics based on identities, is a right-wing politics that is based on the West's that remains faithful to the criteria of righteousness. At the other end of the stick is an Eastern-type right-wing nationalism under the name of anti-imperialism. nationalism. Although this nationalism appears to be anti-imperialist, in essence it is compatible with capitalism. as a photograph. Here, under the name of the left, a phenomenon of imperialism isolated from capitalism There is the presence of nationalists who take themselves as a reference. In particular, the Marxist left has aligned itself with this line. is contrary to the basic proposition that "one cannot be anti-imperialist without being anti-capitalist". attitude is quite meaningful. In this study, we firstly analyse this issue, which should be evaluated under the right umbrella. We will criticise such a definition of anti-imperialism. In short, this article will focus on the left-wing, which perceives anti-imperialism as the defence of the homeland. It is based on the criticism of the nationalist approaches that have permeated it. The basis for determining whether an understanding, individual, group, or organisation is left in theory or not The criterion is the ideological-theoretical-political-historical and scientific realities of the political subject, the left based inferences, making theoretical acquisitions in line with this point of view and is not present. This criterion, which appears to have a very broad content, is essentially a minimum level, but it is a basic criterion at the theoretical level. Other distinctions points are secondary determinants. From this point of view, every person who has embraced the left the basic theoretical theoretical framework that would be the source for any political subject to make a theoretical-political determination. reference points will be left-wing theory and theorists. In practice, the opposite is the case, we should only doubt the leftism of the political subject who exhibits such a practice. will condition it. The fact that different interpretations arise during the definition of any concept is the theoretical references of different ideologies to define-interpret the theoretical references of different ideologies. as a result of the fact that it is done by subjects with different ideological stances originates from the ideology. Every ideology represents the interests of a certain class. So any ideology The definition of a political concept changes according to the ideological positioning of the political subject who defines it. In accordance with this rule, today there are basically two different interpretations of every political term: one is capitalist interpretation and the other is the left interpretation. A political definition of imperialism depends on the ideological according to its positioning, either in its real - objective - sense, i.e. capitalism and its (at the same time all class in a form centred on the private ownership of the means of production and class exploitation inherent in societies; or and free from the private ownership of the means of production, class exploitation and the relations inherent in capitalism. an imperialism that is removed and reduced to a mere violation of territory and/or occupation of countries definition of imperialism. The first of these two different ways of defining and perceiving imperialism, a political subject that takes imperialism as data for a definition of imperialism there is nothing. In fact, there is not much to say to those who favour the latter - at least not in such a situation. through the medium of broadcasting - does not exist, because there is no political subject, ideological-theoretical- the scientific methodology of the left and its ideological-theoretical-political, perspectives and unaware and/or independent of scientific laws and (v)judgements. Or, and even more likely, this The political subject who makes the definition is ideologically opposed to it. Such an ideological positioning subjecting a subject to criticism through a written text in a medium of publication is not sufficient. will not be made as it lacks even logical justification. We are concerned here with the second definition- by taking the way of perception as a given, imperialism and therefore anti-imperialism and political organisations that endeavour to explain the anti-imperialist struggle and act in this direction in the event that the subject labels itself as left, it becomes a critical reaction against this segment. will take over. Capitalism will use the concept(s) in such a way as not to jeopardise its own class interests. the realisation of the necessity for the end of the oppression of the masses under class exploitation, in the direction of protection for the purpose of eliminating the conditions for obtaining information, i.e. consciously, outside the truth defines it. With this method, it endeavours to preserve its power for a longer period of time. For this purpose, capitalism also exempts imperialism from its essence and exposes the essence and qualities of imperialism. in such a way that it does not. Capitalist politicians, Imperialism: "The domination of one state by another state to exert control, influence or superiority over others, whether material or immaterial means"(1). This definition does not express imperialism in its true sense; it is an economic, social, economic and social phenomenon, political, military, etc. qualities, as well as reducing it to the level of a very innocent phenomenon reduces it to a state. Based on this definition by capitalist politicians, it is materially more important than any other state. that a superior state is imperialist and/or that imperialism is only imperialism, or that other We can say that merely achieving material superiority over a state is imperialism. In fact morally, the fact that a state has influence over another state makes that state imperialist We reach the conclusion that a distorted definition of imperialism can be made. Again starting from this definition, Greece has a material and moral superiority, influence and control over Southern Cyprus. Cyprus is an imperialist state (but somehow this definition is not expressed in this form. the sub-imperialist hegemony and policies of the Turkish Republic on Cyprus. Iran, which has a moral influence over Syria, is an imperialist and the main imperialist Israel is under the material and moral control of the USA - this sentence It can also be read in reverse - we can say that it is under imperialist occupation. Definition, all this distorted Besides the quality of giving rise to interpretations, it has the potential to make imperialism appear innocent and legitimate. The conclusion is also clear. Any political subject that calls itself "left" must be able to recognise that imperialism It is rather strange that it offers an explanation that is independent of and opposed to this definition. So, without further ado, let us analyse the main determinant of the reasons for the existence of the left with such a title It is imperatively necessary to refer to Lenin's definition of imperialism. Lenin states precisely the following: "Imperialism is the emergence of the domination of monopolies and finance capital; the first stage of the export of capital. that the division of the world between international trusts has begun and that the division of all the world's land between the largest capitalist countries has been completed. is capitalism that has reached a stage of development in which it has reached a stage of development."(2) It can be seen that Lenin recognised imperialism as "the highest stage of capitalism". is a clear and unambiguous statement. In this case, capitalism, i.e. class a definition of imperialism independent of exploitation and private ownership of the means of production is an anti-left approach in the true sense of the word. The left approach is an approach to imperialism, to capitalism. to introduce a definition of imperialism that is not independent of the relations of production, distribution and property, is a result of the development of these relations, a consequence of the concentration and centralisation of capital monopolisation as a result. Such a definition leads us to the conclusion that anti-imperialism in the form of its opposite. In the final analysis, imperialism = capitalism, anti-imperialism = anti-capitalism and anti-imperialist struggle = in the form of anti-capitalist struggle We are confronted with a situation that we can formulate. In this case, the raison d'être of imperialism - a capitalism as a whole - as the existence of a system of private property in the means of production appears. Therefore, all the actual practices of imperialism, including imperialist wars and occupations and from the order of private property in the means of production - including inter-imperialist wars is due to this. Lenin's writings on the subject are exactly as follows: " (...) production As long as the system of private property in the means of transport exists, on this economic basis, imperialist wars, will be absolutely inevitable."(3) This determination of Lenin on the nature and aim of imperialist wars is clear imperialist wars are caused by the system of private property in the means of production, i.e. capitalism. that it originates from its existence. Another conclusion to be drawn from this determination is that is that without opposing the system of private property in the means of production, without opposing imperialism and therefore unless the relation of private property in the means of production is abolished, imperialism will not disappear. Today, imperialism is not only a policy of occupation/annexation and/or colonisation. is a fallacy of the right, not of the left. The answer to this point of view is Lenin's "Both colonial policy and imperialism are contemporary capitalism: "Colonial policy and imperialism are both contemporary period, even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, was a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But the difference between economic and social forms to speculate on the "general order" of imperialism, ignoring it or pushing it into the background, just like making comparisons between "Greater Rome" and "Great Britain". and banalities. Because colonial policy in the earlier stages of capitalism even from the colonial policy of finance capital."(4) Lenin's statement that capitalism existed before the modern period of capitalism and even before capitalism imperialism, which we define as the highest and last stage of capitalism, and imperialism, which we define as the highest and last stage of capitalism. in terms of the nature of the imperialism. As a product of this qualitative difference, this article analyses "pre-capitalist imperialism", colonialism. Colonialism of the high stage of capitalism will be called imperialism. As an important point of distinction, it should be noted that all colonialism, occupation and annexation, imperialism, but every imperialism is colonialist and occupying. Therefore, every anti-occupationist and/or anti-colonialist movement does not necessarily have to be anti-imperialist, but not every anti The imperialist movement is necessarily anti-occupying and anti-colonialist at the same time. This distinction If anti-imperialism and anti-imperialist struggle is a fundamental reference point, anti-imperialism and anti-imperialist struggle A definition of imperialism would at least be correct in terms of perspective. In terms of its relevance to the subject, Lenin's five fundamental characteristics of imperialism I think it would be appropriate to look at the characteristics. Lenin writes as follows: "(1) the changes in production and capital concentration has reached such a high point of development that it has reached a level of concentration which plays a decisive role in economic life. monopolies; (2) bank capital fused with industrial capital and on this basis of finance capital a financial oligarchy has been created; (3) the export of capital has been given a special significance apart from the export of commodities (4) international monopoly capitalist unions have been established which divide the world between them; (5) the most The territorial division of the world by the great capitalist powers is complete." (5) To perceive imperialism only as a policy of conquest or a policy of occupation/annexation It means ignoring its other fundamental components. True, the policy of conquest-colonialism, occupation and annexation are inherent in imperialism, but these qualities are only one of the components of imperialism and It is even a result in the finalisation of the concept-phenomenon within these components. "In short; the defining features of the latest stage of capitalism are monopolisation, the formation of finance capital and domination (financial oligarchy), the export of capital, international monopoly unions and the "It is the sharing of the world."(6) It can be seen that what is referred to here as the sharing of the world is colonialism or occupation. phenomenon is only one of the components of the definition of imperialism. Therefore, the definition of imperialism to try to explain it with only one of its constituent concept components is not only unwarranted but also wrong. also leads us to the conclusion of making a determination. Because imperialism is not only based on the phenomenon of occupation. to define the occupation of any geography, even reflexively by the inhabitants of that geography. to labelling even the most primitive reaction as an anti-imperialist struggle. leads us to the conclusion that the definition of imperialism is wrong. This wrong definition of imperialism is wrong, and the anti-imperialist struggle on behalf of the left can only be fought on its own behalf. identifying it with opposing the occupation of its country (in this respect a kind of Second Internationalism) to conclude our article by explaining with examples how fundamentally contradictory this understanding is. Let us try. The proponents of this distorted definition of (anti-)imperialism are the proponents of almost every conflict of interest with the imperialists. It is in the eagerness to name the section as anti-imperialist. From this point of view of anti-imperialism according to the political subject who is looking at it, what class interests it is defending or what goal it is trying to achieve Anyone who is in conflict with the imperialists is an anti-imperialist, regardless of their struggle against them. This point of view defines the political subject in terms of the aims, interests and objectives that make it politically self-existent. Instead, it defines it in terms of the opposing side, with which it has some contradictions and conflicts. However, there is no The political structure of the political subject is determined not by what it is in conflict with, through their own goals and objectives. This approach is used at almost every opportunity; "everyone and every understanding that is at war with imperialism is anti-imperialist". Based on metaphysical foundations and to be able to reveal the truth is a proposition that lacks sufficient logical grounds and does not carry even a trace of dialectical thinking. this. It must be recognised that any political subject at war with the imperialists and its goals are important. These goals are the only measure of his ideological formation and positioning. is the test stone. That is to say, the reason for the subject's struggle with the imperialists is the economic character of imperialism, political, military, cultural, philosophical, ethical and ideological existence; or is it a stance against its own Is it the result of a problem arising from economic, power and political interests? A logical answer to this question If a correct answer is not given with a perspective; neither on the issue of anti-imperialism, nor on imperialism on a scientific basis. Following the logic of the above proponents, today Adolf Hitler would suddenly become an anti-imperialist as "anti-imperialist". Because the perception that everyone who fights with the imperialists is anti-imperialist leads us to think that Hitler, who took part in one of the imperialist blocs in the "II. Hitler, who took part in one of the imperialist blocs in the "Second Imperialist on the grounds that it is fighting a war), to define it as anti-imperialist. By the same logic, it could very well be We can also call the other imperialist bloc anti-imperialist. It follows from this understanding that; The wars we know as the wars of division between imperialists I and II were actually fought by anti-imperialists. inter-imperial wars(!) Representatives of this distorted mentality are today the Islamic Republic of Iran, imperial powers such as Saddam Hussein. some subjects who have acted with motives and endeavoured to become a strong imperial focus in the region and and defines the ideological line they represent as anti-imperialist. This distorted understanding tells us shows that in order for a perception to be anti, it must be in contradiction with the concept it claims to be opposed to on the actual plane. and conflict, but rather the raison d'être of the concept it claims to oppose. It depends on the fact that it is opposed to the whole concept and that it is founded on the rejection of that concept in every field. As a final sentence, the most concise and direct expression of our point is that without being anti-capitalist (communist) In this sense, any subject claiming to be on the left today cannot be anti-imperialist, His boastful speeches on anti-imperialism often indicate that he is not on the left, but on the right. In the following section, we will argue that the leftism that prevails in the hegemony of western-type culture is essentially right-wing. we will try to touch upon. 1.Armaoğlu, F., Political History of the 20th century, p.79. 2. Lenin, V.I., Imperialism-The Highest Stage of Capitalism, p.101. 3. Lenin, V.I., op.cit., p.11. 4. Lenin, V.I., op.cit., pp.92-93. 5. Lenin, V.I., op.cit., p.100. 6. Alayoglu, A. O., The Last Chapter: Imperialism, Theory and Politics p.22, pp.25.
