Weak-imperialist Powers - The Process of Assimilation into the Structure of World Imperialism

Weak-imperialist Powers - The Process of Assimilation into the Structure of World Imperialism

(Preface: The following piece by an ICFI (1953) supporter is posted for thought/discussion among readers. The positions herein are not necessarily endorsed.) 

The course of the Russo-Ukraine war - primarily provoked by Western imperialism - confirms the analysis that Russia has been waging a reactionary war aimed only at reaching a deal with imperialism. It is not directed against imperialism itself, nor at resisting Ukraine's violations of the rights of Russian speakers in its territory to self-determination (as it claims), but at further integration into world imperialism. Despite massive military advantages against Western imperialism's proxy army in Ukraine, Russia has found itself - for years - bogged down in a destructive war of attrition entailing a complete waste of human life and material, the violation of Ukrainians' right to self-determination, and the conquest of some 20% of what was formerly Ukrainian territory.

The longer the war has dragged on, the more necessary it has become to clarify its nature, including that of Russia itself. The ICFI describes Russia's reaction as a "predominantly defensive response" to imperialism, but does not support Russia in its conflict with imperialism's proxy in Ukraine. Why? Because, it also tells us, Russia's war is "reactionary" because it is aimed at seeking a "deal with imperialism." What kind of deal? One that entails a "defence of the status quo." But this is a tautology - "Russia's defensive war is reactionary because it is defensive." In a letter endorsed by the IC, we are also told that "there is also [something] missing in the psychological character of the Russian bourgeoisie" and there is "not...any motive to expand...markets." But Marxists do not base their analysis primarily on the psychology and subjective motives of the actors involved, but on the objective logic of world capitalism. The ICFI also cites "reactionary Russian nationalism," but in the era of imperialism, all nation-states have become "reactionary" in general. So is it improper to support any nation in any conflict? This generality could be used to obliterate all dialectical concreteness involved in the Marxist attitude towards specific wars (eg. that between Israel and Palestine, where the ICFI, despite labelling Hamas' nationalism as "fundamentally reactionary" in earlier years, takes the opposite track and gives backhanded support to Hamas.)

At the same time, the various efforts to categorize Russia as "imperialist" have almost universally suffered a fatal flaw: they analyze Russia in complete isolation, inundating us with various figures (e.g., the extent of Russia's investment abroad, the growth of its multinationals, etc.) There is no real attempt to systematically situate these figures within a world analysis. What we need is a real Marxist analysis.

Until now, it has been necessary to categorize Russia as "non-imperialist." It was clearly differentiated from the major imperialist powers while also standing much closer to, and even to many extents below, other countries of intermediate development, such as China, Chile, Brazil, Poland, etc. However, this category was purely negative - it mostly told us what Russia was not, rather than what it is or where it is going. The more the situation develops, the more it is necessary to designate it with a "positive" category. But one does not switch the categorization of countries within the hierarchy of the world system the way one changes their shirt. It requires a development of theory and a clarification of the processes involved. Is this possible? We hope to take the first steps in that direction and show that it is.

Categories like "sub-imperialist" (subordinate imperialist), "weak imperialist," etc countries have existed for some time on the fringes of the Marxist movement. While we do not necessarily draw from these previous efforts, this piece attempts to frame the rise of new bourgeois powers using such a category - ultimately in our case drawn from Lenin's analysis of Portuguese imperialism in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In that seminal work, Lenin dissected the intricate hierarchies of global capitalist domination, revealing how other states could serve as subordinate parts of a system dominated by the core imperialist metropoles. This passage in particular merits full quotation for its precision and relevance:

"A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Portugal. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc., etc. [10] Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, they form part of the sum total of “divide the world” relations and become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital."

Without attempting to rip this analysis out of its historical context and impose it on modern situations with very different particular circumstances - including the rise of globalization - this passage still points towards the existence of a different, and subordinate, category of imperialist power, one characterized by systems of eg. "financial" dependence on the major imperialist powers and integration into the "chain of operations of world finance capital." Lenin's insight underscores the complex nature of imperialism: not a monolithic bloc, but a pyramid of exploitation where semi-peripheral formations can both draw sustenance from and extend the tendrils of the core powers. In the contemporary context, at a time when the contradictions of world capitalism are sharpening amid the relative decline of the historic imperialist centers - chief among them the United States, whose hegemonic pretensions mask deepening internal and external decay - and the convulsions of wars, we witness the maturation of this subordinate layer.

This process is not accidental but arises from the inexorable logic of capital accumulation in the age of imperialism. The core powers, facing overproduction crises and the exhaustion of national markets, propel outward expansion through capital export, which in turn fosters bourgeois growth in the peripheries. These emergent elites, far from representing a rupture with imperialism, embody its adaptation: they assimilate advanced productive forces while perpetuating the extraction of surplus value from the most oppressed. The weak-imperialist powers thus function as "links in the chain of operations of world finance capital," as Lenin might have termed them - channeling the imperatives of Wall Street and the City of London into the arteries of countries of historically belated development.

In the modern period, we are witnessing the development of a new system of weak-imperialist powers emerging from the relative decline in the positions of older imperialist powers and following on the backs of the rise of Israel, Taiwan and South Korea as imperialist powers over previous decades. This reconfiguration is evident in the empirical trajectories of select countries: China, Russia, Brazil, and Poland serve as illustrative cases, each at varying rungs of this hierarchy yet united in their role as intermediaries. Countries at various stages in this process (ranging from Russia, China, Brazil, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, etc) sometimes bear marks of under-development, unresolved democratic tasks, or a legacy of previous "Sovietization" (this in particular creating the foundations for some to rise as imperialist powers), alongside advanced technology and function as transmission belts for the remaining (and overwhelming) economic and political pressure of the core imperialist powers. These countries constitute agencies of imperialism among the countries of belated development and maneuver and mediate between the core imperialist powers and less developed countries. They represent the growth of a layer which has reached a stage similar in many ways to that reached by the core imperialist powers some 100+ years ago.

Consider the quantitative dimensions of this assimilation. Foreign direct investment (FDI) outflows, a hallmark of imperialist expansion, have surged in these states, signaling their integration into the circuits of global finance capital. In China, outward FDI stock ballooned from a mere $28 billion in 2000 to approximately $2.9 trillion by 2023, with annual outflows peaking at $196 billion in 2016 before stabilizing at around $147 billion in 2022. This explosive growth, facilitated by state-orchestrated initiatives like the Belt and Road, exemplifies how weak-imperialist powers repurpose accumulated surplus for predatory ventures abroad, often in tandem with Western multinationals. Russia's FDI outflows, though volatile due to geopolitical frictions, reached $70.69 billion in 2013 before contracting to $29.1 billion in 2023 amid sanctions, yet underscoring a persistent drive to secure enclaves in the post-Soviet space and beyond. Brazil's outward FDI stock expanded from approximately $28 billion in 2000 to $366 billion by 2023; these flows predominantly target South American dependencies and African resource cradles, reinforcing Western-orchestrated commodity circuits through state-backed giants like Petrobras. Poland's trajectory, from a modest $268 million stock in 2000 to $38.2 billion in 2023, reflects EU-aligned expansion, funneled into Eastern European logistics and energy footholds that service German and Western European monopolies.

Parallel to this outward thrust is the internal accumulation of bourgeois wealth, as measured by per capita income growth - an indicator of the expanding material base sustaining the weak-imperialist bourgeoisie. China's GDP per capita rocketed from $963 in 2000 to $13,806 in 2025, a massive increase that reflects the general growth of wealth, although consolidated to a great extent in the hands of the ruling strata. Russia's per capita income climbed from $1,898 in 2000 to $17,446 in 2025, expressing economic advance amid oligarchic wealth concentration. Poland's ascent, from $4,499 in 2000 to $28,484 in 2025, underscores increasing integration into EU supply chains. Brazil's per capita income surged some ~200% from 2000 to 2025, a rise that masks deepening divides enriching a narrow oligarchy. These metrics illuminate not progress but the growing abyss between the classes: rising averages atop widening chasms of exploitation.

Compounding this is the consistent growth of monopolies within these economies, an epitome of Lenin's "monopoly stage." In China, monopolies dominate various sectors, with aggregate profits increasingly concentrated, fostering rent-seeking and mirroring the core's financialization. Russia's economy has witnessed a decade-long consolidation, with state policy entrenching oligarchic monopolies in various sectors, where easy profits propel behavior reminiscent of the bourgeoisie in core imperialist countries - with mass amounts of capital as FDI being funneled through conduits like Cyprus. In Brazil, oligopolies in mining and agribusiness - epitomized by Vale's near-monopolies on nickel and iron ore (controlling over 80% of exports) and JBS's dominance in meat processing (world's largest, with 20%+ global share) - entrench rentier capitalism, often intertwined with U.S. agribusiness giants. Banking follows suit, with the top five institutions commanding 75% of assets. Poland's monopolistic tendencies mirror this in energy, where PKN Orlen wields 35% control over fuel refining and distribution, and in insurance via PZU's 30% market stranglehold; copper mining sees KGHM monopolizing 100% of output, channeling into EU-oriented extraction. These tendencies to monopoly are no anomalies but necessary corollaries to weak-imperialist ascent: they both consolidate and result from the consolidation of a bourgeoisie based on a growing accumulation of capital perfectly fit to function as a tool for the facilitation of the exploitation of the least developed countries.

Though these countries constitute agencies of imperialism, this obviously does not preclude the emergence of limited or even intense conflict between these countries and the core imperialist countries as these various powers maneuver to advance their own positions, attempts by the core imperialist powers to seek to retain their power by throwing various countries back to semi-colonial existence, and the resultant return of great power conflicts posing the possibility of World War Three. Witness the U.S.-China trade war, a skirmish over semiconductor supremacy that belies deeper rivalries and the gearing up of the United States for war against its great power rivals, or the sanctions regime throttling Russia's Eurasian ambitions and the army of Western imperialism's proxy regime in Ukraine. Such frictions, however, are inevitable results of the division of the world into nation-states, and do not imply any counter-argument against the fundamental nature of the previously identified countries involved. The weak imperialist powers remain tethered, as evidenced by their reliance on international finance.

The emergence of "weak-imperialisms" does not signify any progressive development in any countries of belated historical development, but rather an intensification of the lack of any "national independence" in the modern phase of imperialism: not only have such countries failed to establish any genuine independence from the core imperialists, but now they function to amplify the pressures of imperialism to other countries as well. The complete and genuine defeat of imperialism remains to this day the task of the global working class.

In their struggle to expand the markets for their own commodity and financial exports, the weak-imperialist powers can be seen laying physical and cultural groundwork in less developed countries for increased imperialist penetration of the rest of the world, eg. the various infrastructure projects launched by China in Africa, creating the conditions so attractive to the most developed powers for the export of advanced productive capital. At the same time, this behavior, more reminiscent of earlier stages of imperialism, clearly differentiates these countries from the most developed imperialist powers, who orient most of their investment towards other developed countries and countries of intermediate development containing the infrastructure suitable for the export of advanced productive capital. China's Belt and Road Initiative, ensnaring over 140 nations in debt traps totaling $385 billion by 2023, exemplifies this: ports in Djibouti and railways in Kenya become footholds for European and American capital, much as Portugal's enclaves once serviced British fleets. Similarly, Russian ventures in Central Asia secure pipelines, feeding global energy needs; Polish conglomerates in neighboring economies secure footholds for multinationals; Brazilian multinationals like Vale pioneer mining infrastructure in African nations such as Mozambique and Guinea, with over $5 billion invested since 2010 in rail and ports that lure Western capital; meanwhile, Poland's PKO BP's Ukrainian banking outposts ($500 million+ assets) embed financial tendrils, paving EU-domination. These are not acts of solidarity but the weak-imperialist modus operandi: pioneering penetration that ultimately facilitates the imperial core's exploitation.

Yet this assimilation exacts a toll. The weak-imperialist bourgeoisie, intoxicated by their gains, confronts decreasing growth, mounting class contradictions, nigh-impenetrable barriers to entry into the imperialist core and inter-state friction that threatens destruction unseen since World War Two. The workers and oppressed, bearing the brunt, stir: mass strikes in Chinese factories, strikes in Siberia...

Lenin's warning resonates: imperialism drags all into its web and the entire world towards barbarism unless checked by revolution. The weak-imperialist farce - far from heralding a "multipolarity" blessing - intensifies the global crisis of overaccumulation, which, colliding with the nation-state system, hastens the objective conditions for socialist transformation as well as explosive inter-state conflicts. The working class - spanning metropole and periphery and beyond - must forge unity against this hierarchy: not through nationalist illusions, but through the internationalist struggle to expropriate the expropriators.

Build a Mass World Socialist Party

 

Everywhere, national based revolutionary groups have failed to seize the opportunities for revolution. In countries all over the world, the forces of reaction have punished the left for its failures.

The mass of workers respond spontaneously and with whatever tools they have,…

— Internationalism 1953 (@1953Icfi) August 30, 2026

Everywhere, national based revolutionary groups have failed to seize the opportunities for revolution. In countries all over the world, the forces of reaction have punished the left for its failures.

The mass of workers respond spontaneously and with whatever tools they have, which might vary from trade unions and strikes to protests that are all too frequently permitted to dissipate by petty-bourgeois and pseudo-left leaderships. The imperialist order and the entire capitalist system must be opposed on a world scale, and this requires the creation of global organizations that can do it.

What is needed is a World Socialist Party at the head of a mass movement, the kind of revolutionary leadership of the proletariat that the Bolsheviks sought to establish when they founded the Communist International after the success of the Russian Revolution. Today, under conditions of globalized production, the Russian experience as an isolated working-class revolution cannot be repeated and only such a global leadership can ensure success in even one country and prevent the slide into war and a hellish social and political landscape.

No matter how militant the masses become, this leadership cannot develop on its own. The bourgeoisie, through the division of the world into archaic nation-states and the global imperialist system, which is the means by which global financial capital rules the world, keeps the struggles of the world working class divided. At the same time, globalization has fundamentally undermined nationalism. This calls for organizations that can respond globally, and only the global proletariat can accomplish this if it is equipped with a strategy that bases itself on the bedrock principles of Revolutionary Marxist Internationalism.

To fight for a future for the whole world, it is necessary for workers to emblaze upon our banners the slogan: for international organizations of the working class as the foundation for a world socialist party to lead the workers to power in every country! 

Part deux: 

As the capitalist crisis worsens, it is finding its expression in a worsened onslaught on the social position of the working class, social upheaval, and a stepped-up push toward war... Everywhere in the world, the representatives of the ruling class and their cronies, whether…

— Internationalism 1953 (@1953Icfi) September 4, 2026

As the capitalist crisis worsens, it is finding its expression in a worsened onslaught on the social position of the working class, social upheaval, and a stepped-up push toward war... Everywhere in the world, the representatives of the ruling class and their cronies, whether they are on the "left" or the right, have arrived at a dead end. 

On picket lines and mass protests around the world workers are feeling their power, but it needs to become part of a united and conscious struggle aimed at seizing state power and establishing workers’ governments in every country. Efforts to put pressure on the capitalist state to enact reforms to contain this crisis will only fail and leave the masses demoralized. A diseased social order in social and political descent, capitalism and its nation-state system are headed for disaster... 

Growing sprouts of working class opposition portend an eventual worldwide revolutionary situation, but we will lose if we allow the ruling class to isolate our struggles country by country. Thinking broadly and globally is necessary to combat the ruling classes' attacks, which have the backing of all the world's governments. It is necessary for us to draw the lessons from the failures of every nationalist-reformist program and take up a new strategy. 

If looking to nationalist and reformist or pseudo-left organizations to save us is incapable of offering a way out, then workers need a new political alternative - a genuinely revolutionary world socialist party based on the international working class. Only global organization and struggle can put us in a position to fight back and bypass the constrained parameters of the national trade unions and pseudo-left parties, which continue to be shackled by the nation-state and bound to pro-capitalism. 

Only such a party, fighting for a world without ruling classes and borders, can offer a solution to the economic crises, wars, the drive towards authoritarianism, climatic disasters and other social crises which are accumulating with no end in sight. The task of such a party would be to fight for the intervention of the international working class as an independent force, capable of imposing a working class solution to the crisis of capitalism and its nation-state system. Without such a party, capitalism will deliver us a future of increasing poverty and social stratification and ecological and social collapse, if not a nuclear apocalypse. 

For the international unity of the working class! 

Build a world socialist party!

(Repost from the struggle in Sri Lanka) How the Sri Lanka SEP bureaucracy made the concept of Self-determination a weapon of repression

(The IC's disingenuous discarding of the Leninist position in favor of the right to self-determination was correctly opposed by elements of the SEP-Sri Lanka. That such a major programmatic revision of the ideals of Bolshevik-Leninism received so little opposition is an indictment.

The road to revisionism was paved by the equation of demand for self-determination with support to bourgeois national liberation movements, which have become bankrupt. This is not an excuse to remove “self-determination” from the program, where it could be explained in a "negative" sense, ala Lenin.

Of course, abandoning the demand for self-determination was a complete betrayal of Marxism which has to this day not been provided a theoretical justification.

Originally, the ICFI provided an explanation for dropping "self-determination" as a slogan, based on the degeneration of "national liberation" movements... but it's "linguistic" argument never justified the abandonment of self-determination in the program of Marxists.

[See also 1987: The Situation in Sri Lanka and the Political Tasks of the Revolutionary Communist League - "The failure of the LTTE does not invalidate the demand for national self-determination, nor does it signify the hopelessness of such a struggle... Like all other unresolved tasks of the democratic movement, national self-determination can only be achieved through the dictatorship of the proletariat."])

By Nandana Nanneththi
How the Sri Lanka SEP bureaucracy made the concept of Self-determination a weapon of repression – Global Socialist Reviews

SEP Comrades and Friends, who stand against capitalism,

We have entered a critical phase of the class struggle. The world is fast heading towards a world war and to a situation where revolution and counter-revolution are posed against each other. It is now very clear that there is no way forward for any nationalist movement other than sharpening the counter-revolution.

But without the decisive intervention of the working class, not a single problem of the people will be solved. Without arming the working class with the international revolutionary program of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), the working class cannot play a central role in the growing current of mass struggles. To do that, the fight against the existing consciousness of the working class should be intensified and accelerated.

On the part of the capitalist class, it is necessary to diffuse that battle in order to secure itself. The pressure exerted by capitalism on the working class to create a situation within the parties themselves that can slip the national sections of the International Committee from their foundations, is immense.

In Sri Lanka, the target victim of this pressure is the Socialist Equality Party (SEP). Therefore, more than ever, it is essential to be based on the history of the international class struggle and the party, and to be firm in policies and principles.

In these circumstances, the fact that the party’s current bureaucratic regime is diluting the party is a matter that needs to be discussed in depth. It is a task that calls for greater effort in theory, programme and perspectives. It is crucially important to expose and defeat the terrible lies and distortions propagated inside and outside the party by the party regime against the members who highlight that task.

On The 16 November 2021, comrade Wije Dias, the then General Secretary of the party accused me of rejecting the perspective of the International Committee on Self-Determination and banned me from party membership for three weeks from November 15, 2021, saying that the “membership ban will continue to be in effect” unless explanations were made within that period. You will understand sooner that this was the beginning of a witch-hunt launched in the party since 2015 when the Sirisena-Wickramasinghe government came to power with the backing of the United States.

However, I responded to the leadership in due time. It exposed the falsity of the leadership’s allegations and was therefore thrown out for the same reason. But as against that, the party circulated a letter dated December 20, 2021, written under the name of Wasantha Rupasinghe, with the approval of the General Secretary, which stated, “when we look carefully at all these distortions of Comrade Nandana” it appears that “the party is turned away from the internationalist foundations and surrendered to petty-bourgeois pressure by posting on Facebook pages to transform the party into an ‘ambalama’ (a wayside resting place for general public during the past) that can be used by various leftist people,”

The aim of the bureaucracy was to prevent me from attending the Congress which was to be held in March.

A letter dated February 7, 2022, signed by 17 party members and sent to the SEP Central Committee, intervened against this preparation. It states “Comrade Nandana has forwarded his reply to the Central Committee within the stipulated period. But the political committee has decided to prevent him from participating in the National Congress to be held on February 12, 13, 14 by continuing the ban without giving any reason.”

“In response to Nandana’s request to participate in the Congress, he was informed in a letter on the 29th that the Political Committee had decided with the consent of Comrade DN to allow him to participate in the conference and preparatory discussions subject to three conditions: ie. not abusing the membership mandate received; not disrupting the discussion; and acting under the agenda of the Congress and the pesidum to be appointed. Nandana has reported to the Central Committee and the International Committee that he accepts these conditions, on the 31st.”

“However, at 12.35pm on the 2nd, an email from Comrade Wije banned his participation once again.”

Rejecting the unconstitutional and undemocratic decision of the Political Committee, the members’ letter stated, “[w]e insist on the serious relevance of theoretical political discussions based on democratic centralism for political clarity.” “The attempt is made to hold the Congress in this way, in the circumstances where the political committee has made serious allegations against three party central committee members and a large group of members,” it pointed out.

Referring to the allegations made by the political committee in the above-quoted portion of Rupasinghe’s letter, it said that, due to this situation, it is necessary to resolve these issues before the Congress.

The convening of the Congress was only a ritual, carried out while retaining and maintaining the wrong practices, and the deceitful tactics, instead of preparing for the new revolutionary struggles of the class struggle. With that understanding the said article stated: “The members were informed only on 27 January that the Congress will be held from February 12…Chilaw locale was informed on February 4.”

“In accordance with paragraph 7 (b) of the constitution of the SEP, the Central Committee shall issue the notice of holding the National Congress at least 60 days in advance.”

“7 (e) Drafts of the agenda and documents shall be given to the delegates 20 days before the conference.”

“The special issue that we are focusing on here is why the constitution that the international committee is said to be taking seriously is not considered so by one of its branches.”

“Conducting the conference in this way is an invitation to go from confusion to confusion. Therefore, we, the undersigned, propose that it should be adjourned, so that the conference gets the time it needs.”

The letter had gone to the trash bin. On the next 10th, an english copy of it was forwarded to the International Committee(IC), and the very next day, consequent to IC’s discussions with the Sri Lanka section, the party agreed to postpone the Congress and allow for the participation of Nandana in the Congress and pre-Congress discussions.

But the aim of the leadership was somehow to prevent Nandana from returning to the Central Committee and to prevent the party’s political and theoretical crisis from emerging in the Congress.

The party regime continued to confuse newcomers, conservative members and members who had not been theoretically equipped for years, by uprooting the concept of self-determination from the foundations of the International Committee’s political position. Although my article refuted the allegation of violating paragraphs 30-4-5-6 of the party’s foundation document (2011) regarding self-determination, the regime concealed it from the membership, imposed its own fabrications on it and demanded that I be punished for it.

They corrupted the party membership with reactionary concepts so much so that they wrote on self-determination in Rupasingha’s aforesaid letter that, “the slogan means fighting to assert the right of self-determination of the Sinhala and Tamil working class against the Sinhala and Tamil capitalist class.” This is a distortion of history, concepts and political positions. Whatever be their thinking, such a position definitely aligns with the pressure of anti-historical, Sinhalese-Buddhist racist, reactionary position that the oppressed Tamil people are not subjected to different oppression than the Sinhalese. Within the Marxist movement, this slogan proclaims opposition to the subjugation of weaker nations by imperialism and the subjugation of minority ethnic groups by the rule of the majority group within the nation-state itself. When the International Committee reconsidered this concept and its use since early ’90s, it was not stripped of its democratic content, as the party bureaucracy claims.

SEP membership will read my answer now for the first time. It is posted below. It contains only that part of the reply titled “False Charge Sheet”, which relates to the subject in issue. Even so, bearing witness to the firm struggle waged by the SEP left faction to resolve political issues politically, it will gain, I believe, the necessary attention from the working class, in order to secure the progressive development of the party and the class struggles ahead.

False charge sheet

According to your statement, “the SEP Political Committee unanimously condemns the attempt to distort a very important policy issue of the International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Party – the decision to reject the demand for the right of nations to self-determination — and thereby create serious confusion about that policy.

It also states: “Your position that the SEP defends the self-determination of nations is in stark contrast to the positions especially of paragraphs 30-4 and 30-6, in the International Foundation.”

You are using a conversation that started on my page in the face book on November 5, 2021. It was based on the following excerpt from SEP Principles Statement that I have quoted there.

“Democratic Centralism

The revolutionary struggle of the working class requires organization, and organization is impossible without discipline. But the discipline required for revolutionary struggle cannot be imposed bureaucratically from above. It must develop on the basis of an agreement, freely arrived at, on principles and program. This conviction finds expression in the organizational structure of the Socialist Equality Party, which is based on the principles of democratic centralism. In the formulation of policy and the appropriate tactics, the fullest democracy must prevail within the party. No restraints, other than those indicated by the party’s constitution, are placed on internal discussion of the SEP’s policies and activities. Leaders are democratically elected by the membership, and are subject to criticism and control. Those candidates for leadership who cannot abide criticism should ponder the words of James P. Cannon, the founder of the Trotskyist movement in the United States: “The truth never hurt anyone, provided he was on the level.” But if the formulation of policy requires the broadest discussion and open and honest criticism, its implementation demands the strictest discipline. The decisions arrived at democratically within the party are binding on all members. Those who object to this essential element of centralism in the implementation of decisions, who see in the demand for discipline a violation of their personal freedom, are not revolutionary socialists but anarchistic individualists, who do not understand the implications and demands of the class struggle. “

I say that your opposition is to the basic principles of Bolshevism quoted above, such as broad discussion, genuine criticism and strict discipline.

Let me quote the relevant discussion that took place under the above post – which you are distorting, with a person named Seevali Attanayake – in the exact way it actually happened.

Seevali Attanayake: Does the SEP currently recognize the right of minorities for selfdetermination?

Nandana Nannetti: Yes. Attanayake: With regard to Sri Lanka? Nandana: Yes. Attanayake: Long live my old Kamkaru Mawatha.

Nandana: I do not understand.

Attanayake: After 88/89, I worked with the Kamkaru Mawatha at the University. Later it was learned that they did not recognize the right of the Tamil people for selfdetermination.

Nandana: The RCL and the SEP have never acted in defiance of the civil rights of the oppressed masses. But we repel the conspiracies of building up of small imperialist dependent pockets in the name of self-determination. How many examples one can find to show that such fragments of states do not protect any right of the oppressed people? All radical nationalist movements have aligned themselves with this or that imperialist group over the past few decades.

Attanayake: It is very clear that the SEP’s position has changed. Thank you. What is the party’s position on the right of nations to self-determination and the concept of homeland?

Nandana: Defending the right to self-determination of the oppressed is now a task for the working class. That position has never changed. Can you mention any such instance?

Attanayake: Is the Kamkaru Mawatha, which raised its voice against the genocidal war during the Civil War, is still holding that position today?

Nandana: Yes, today, tomorrow and forever it will mobilize the working class against the aggression of the Sinhala ruling class.

Nandana: Read the Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party of Sri Lanka -The National Question. You can read it from wsws.org (National question in Foundation document is the full text from 30-1 to 30-6 of that document.)

Attanayake: Is the SEP still advocating for the formation of a Socialist Republic of Tamil Eelam-Sri Lanka as a part of the Socialist Republic of Indian subcontinent under the leadership of the working class?

Nandana: Yes Attanayake: Thank you comrade, for patiently replying.

(from this conversation, it is shown that our position on the national question is sometimes presented before the masses in a distorted way. I think those who participated in this conversation were able to correct it.)

The next day, Nalaka Malalagama, a sympathizer of the party, made a special note in his face book as follows: “The SEP (RCL) does not stand for self-determination of the oppressed.” This is a statement hostile to the SEP’s perspective. We will no longer use the ‘right to self-determination’ as a slogan. The reason for this is, as we have affirmed in our reply to the Spartacist League, due to the fact that the new separatist nationalist movements and imperialists have distorted the meaning of the slogan, it creates confusion.

It does not mean any neglection of the self-determination which is among the most basic democratic rights of oppressed nations.

I wrote: “The LSSP entered the bourgeois government and betrayed the working class perspective on the self-determination of the oppressed nations. It was the beginning of a 30-year war and the prolongation of the existence of capitalism. In that case, knowingly tolerating Malalagama’s propaganda below is a betrayal of the unstoppable revolution. “

The lesson that the LTTE’s separatist movement is, in the final analysis, the result of LSSP betrayal; is far greater than an accusation leveled at the LSSP itself. That is, it is an accusation against Trotskyism and, was an event that raised unavoidable historical, theoretical and political issues directly linked with the life of the international working class.

The LSSP, which was rooted in the working class marked the earliest instances of a Trotskyist party entering a bourgeois government and, spearheaded the creation of a racial and religious constitution against the oppressed, creating conditions for the alienation of the oppressed Tamil nation from the working class. It also created the conditions for a generation of working class and young people to be positioned against the program of the permanent revolution.

On this basis that I have defended the positions of paragraphs 30-4-5-6, which you say I have contradicted.

For example, I can show you that there is no contradiction between this position appears in 30-4 and my comment: “The new form of nationalism promotes separatism along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines, with the aim of dividing up existing state for the benefit of local exploiters. Such movement have nothing to with a struggle against imperialism, nor do they in any sense embody the democratic aspirations of the masses of oppressed. They save to divide the working class and divert the class struggle in to ethno-communal warfare.” In the interest of unifying the working class, the international committee insisted in a critical, even hostile, attitude to the proliferation of national separatism movements and there invocation of ‘the right of self-determination’ to justify the formation of separate capitalist state.”

30-5 as stated, “For the masses, they hold out the prospect only of ethnic bloodbaths and intensified exploitation.”

30-6 declares that, “support for the right of ‘self-determination for the Tamil people’, which in practical political terms could only mean support of the national separatist project of the LTTE, no longer had any progressive content.” But “The RCL continued to intransigently oppose the Sri Lankan government efforts to forcibly maintain the island’s unity by military means.” ( The emphasis is mine )

I am convinced that I have expressed a very clear hostile attitude to the right to ‘selfdetermination’ which is emphasized in black letters here. As the final sentence states; “The RCL’s demand for the unconditional withdrawal of armed forces from the North and East did not imply support for a separate Eelam. The idea is to unite the working class and the oppressed masses in a revolutionary struggle.” Instead, the RCL’s expectation in opposing the military repression against the Tamil masses was to unite the working class and the oppressed masses in a revolutionary struggle for a Sri Lanka Eelam Socialist Republic. “The meaning of this is that, the struggle for working class dictatorship is waged on the basis of the unity built upon the foundation of accepting democratic rights including the right to self determination of the oppressed nations.”

Removing its all-essential adjectives and declaring that the SEP does not stand for the right of the self determination of the oppressed nations is hostile to the unity of the working class that emerges from this perspective.

In my understanding, the concept of the transitional program in the Question of selfdetermination is still valid today.” It is impossible merely to reject the democratic program; it is imperative that in the struggle of the masses outgrow it. The slogan for national (or constituent) Assembly preserves its full force of such countries as China or India. This slogan must be indissolubly tide up with the problem of national liberation and agrarian reform. As a primary step the workers must be armed with this democratic program.” ‘The Death Agony of Capitalism and Task of the Forth International’ (The emphasis is mine)

“The truth is that the essential progressive content of self-determination –the eradication of national oppression- can be realized only through the SEP’s program for the socialist united states of Sri Lanka and Elam.“ ‘The SEP and the fight for the socialist united states of Sri Lanka and Elam 1998’

“The outbreak of the first word war vindicated Trotsky’s insistence on the primacy of the international situation over national factors “comrade Dave stated “The imperialist war signified in essence, the impossibility of peaceful reconciling the productive force of world capitalism with the outmoded national state. Both the working class in the advance as well as backward countries faced a common dilemma: The solution to all the fundamental problems of human society was to be found only at the level of word economic development and through the medium of international revolutionary struggle”, (Commemoration of comrade Keerthi Balasuriya’ 1993)

“Trotsky argued very clearly on this question; even in his lifetime, when the demand for self-determination still retained a progressive content, it did not stand above the struggle to establish the unity of the working class on the basis of socialist program. The demand for self-determination did not then, no dos it now, signify the reconciliation of Marxism and nationalism. Above all, it does not oblige the Marxist party to give support of any kind to separatism” Ibid

As Trotsky says “Only the question of power by the world proletariat can assure a real and lasting freedom of development for all nationals of our planet”

‘For socialist, self-determination means nothing if not opposition to the use of state coercion to force national minorities remain within the confines of given state. This was the essential democratic content of the demand when it was posed at the beginning of this century and remains so today” in ‘Marxism, opportunism and the Balkan crisis’, ICFI’1984

The unprecedented geographical integration of capitalist production unleashed two major trends on the national question.

1) The old nationalist regimes attracting geographically circulating capital by providing all the factors of cheap labor and unbridled exploitation.

2) In areas where natural resources and industries are set aside to repay foreign debt, as well as in areas with international transport capabilities, public works structure and cheap labor, the ruling parties have seceded from the influence of all previous governments and put forward separatism to racket themselves with foreign capital and gain more profit.

Our struggle against these tendencies is the mobilization of all nations under the revolutionary leadership of the working class, and there is no easy way to achieve that struggle, disregarding the national question.

I must now say that you are working with the attitude that there is no special thing called a national question. You define that all people face in the crisis of capitalism, dismissing its contradictions. That leads you to a pragmatic approach which is against the dialectics. It is not the policy of the working class. This stance abandons the theory of permanent revolution.

I think this provides a clear answer to your charge sheet. We need to work together to understand the roots of the problem. I will provide the rest of this article within the next two weeks.

Fraternally,

Nandana Nanneththi

06.12.2021

Brief Critique of Dan Lazare on Gender: For a Revolutionary-Critical Attitude Towards Gender, Not Ambiguous Polemic

I - (2/3/26)

(A response to Dan Lazare)

Daniel Lazare's article raises important concerns about the postmodern roots of contemporary gender theory and its dangerous results (including uncritical medical interventions for youth) and highlights its contradictions with scientific materialism. The critique of Judith Butler's performative framework as ultimately unscientific is poignant and necessary. So too is the exposure of silencing tactics, uncritical adaptation to the liberal mainstream in some leftist groups (e.g., Spartacists/Internationalist Group/ICFI pushing puberty blockers & surgeries without engaging evidence contradictory to the new gender orthodoxy), and the political costs - including how the Democratic mishandling of the issue contributed to Trump's 2024 victory and the failure of radical groups to establish a solid Marxist position for the working class.

However, it is not only (limited) Marxists but traditionalists and "TERFS" that have made (often valid) criticisms of the contradictions of "gender ideology." A Marxist text targeting the same issues therefore demands critical clarity. However, the piece as written risks political ambiguity at best, and at worst alignment with right-wing narratives.

This one-sided polemic downplays dialectical nuance, simplistically overemphasizes gender as a biological phenomenon, and fails to advance a revolutionary-critical stance that transcends both liberal "gender ideology" and reactionary "biologism."

By framing trans-related developments predominantly as a bourgeois-radical train wreck and devastating bourgeois deviation and not clarifying a Marxist attitude towards gender - and through phrases like "invasion" of women's sports/changing rooms, "vicious hate campaigns" against (ultimately right-wing) TERFs, and emphasis on "horror stories" (e.g., the reference to JK Rowling), it can read as echoing right-wing narratives that portray trans existence as inherently threatening. This risks tailing reaction rather than advancing a revolutionary-critical stance that defends trans dignity against bigotry while exposing the limits of "gender ideology" and the contemporary trans movement.

Unlike proponents of "gender ideology" who - despite the supposedly "subversive" character of their anti-scientific theories - objectively accept the framework of gender as formed within class society and seek only the freedom to maneuver within it, expand its horizons, etc., Marxists adopt a revolutionary-critical attitude toward the social forms of gender as they exist under class society. This is part of the broader struggle to abolish all the outmoded, reactionary "muck of ages" sustained by capitalism and class society. It also means resolute opposition to reactionary forces that exploit the contradictions in "gender ideology" to advocate "turning back the clock" and who propagate bigotry and chauvinism.

None of the legitimate materialist critique of gender theorists should be taken to mean that Marxists "defend" the social forms of gender that have taken shape under class society. Rather, we defend a scientific and materialist understanding of their roots. Nor should it be taken to mean that the current chapter in the evolution of thought on gender and the parallel changes in social forms of gender taking place - despite being bound up with real contradictions, including inappropriate "gender-affirming" medical procedures and social/political confusion - has been reactionary "through and through." To the extent that archaic, rigid gender roles have been objectively undermined - the latest stage in a long process of transformation stretching back generations - this is a progressive development that revolutionaries seek to push forward. Lazare's narrative omits these important points.

Lazare rightly points to capitalist decay as a factor fueling the surge in gender dysphoria, but the deeper issue is class society as such and the gender framework to which it gave rise. Strictly economic pressures are not the only factor. The very existence of gender roles - developed over thousands of years of human history as part of the cultural superstructure - establishes the framework in which gender dysphoria emerges. This is why gender dysphoria is not a new phenomenon (though the recent explosion is) but one that has appeared across time periods and cultures. A dialectical analysis must take into account the complex interaction of base and superstructure, without reducing gender dysphoria to the stresses and strains of capitalist decay.

The solution is not retreat into "biologism" or reaction, nor liberal half-measures, but socialist revolution to overturn the social forms of gender formed through class society and its legacy of oppression.

The Spartacists' and Internationalist Group's uncritical calls for "hands off trans kids" and affirmation for minors - based on the "facts" of "men and women" and "society as it is currently organized" (what Trotsky called "worshipping of the accomplished fact") - illustrate the dangers of tailing liberal ideology. But Lazare's framing veers too close to employing the same method, only with opposite results: amplifying fears of "invasion" or taking an ambiguous attitude towards gender in ways that can play into right-wing narratives and disorient the working class.

A genuine Marxist analysis must defend trans people against reactionary assaults, critique bourgeois gender ideology's scientific and political limits, and fight for transcendence through class struggle. The article raises vital questions that must be built on with radical, dialectical clarity - not ambiguity or simplicity.

Examining the Russian Revolution on its 108th Anniversary

(This piece is based on a lecture delivered by Cliff Slaughter in the 1960s)

As we celebrate the 108th Anniversary of the October Revolution, the world stands on the brink of a situation more explosive than that which led to the eruption of World War I and eventually the Revolution itself. It is necessary to draw the lessons of the October Revolution as our class confronts the breakdown of the world capitalist system in the 21st century. 

The Revolution did not fall from the sky. Eight months prior to the October Revolution, Russia had experienced another revolution, the February Revolution. Tsarism, the most despised and brutal autocracy on Earth which had ruled for 300 years, was overthrown by a massive movement of workers, peasants and soldiers. The Russian workers, who had toiled in destitution and misery under the bloody rule of the Tsar, were surrounded by a mass of peasants living in almost medieval conditions. The February Revolution led to the establishment of a "democratic" provisional government and the creation of Workers' Councils (Soviets), and in the conditions then existing in Russia this gave the impression of massive victory and produced a significant wave of euphoria.

This sentiment overcame many Russian socialists, including Bolshevik leaders in Petrograd such as Stalin and Kamanev, who demanded critical support for the new bourgeois government and nearly provoked Lenin to resign from the Party. However, after eight months of “liberal” government lack of action and compromise in the face of an escalating threat of a counterrevolutionary coup, by October, the working population had overthrown the provisional government and the ruling class standing behind it and installed their own socialist workers' government! 

In April, Lenin had shocked the crowd that gathered to welcome the famous revolutionist when he exited the "sealed train" upon his return to Russia from exile in Switzerland. After the February Revolution, he didn't celebrate the beginning of a new era; instead, he started a new struggle: "Down with the Provisional government! All Power to the Soviets!" At that time, even many of his comrades believed that the presence of workers councils were a guarantee of a truly "democratic" development. But this situation was not sustainable. Given the power of the working class and its organizations, Lenin saw this "democratic" stage as a situation of "dual power" and a priceless window of opportunity for socialist revolution. The organized power of the working class and its allies could not co-exist with the state of the reactionary Russian capitalists and landlords - the former would either smash this machine or be trampled by the counter-revolution of the latter. 

The most important lessons in the history of the global workers' movement can be found in Lenin’s bold attempt to readjust consciousness to the objective situation. The uncompromising revolutionism of Lenin and Bolshevism led workers and peasants through the necessary experiences that proved to the masses that the seizure of state power was necessary. 

The global working class came to achieve its greatest victory during the 1917 Russian October Revolution and forever altered the course of world history. It was unequivocally demonstrated that the working class could rule and begin the creation of a new society while abolishing the capitalist class. Under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, the working class had gained and held political power for the first time in history over 1/6 of the world. The course of the Russian Revolution had vindicated the strategic approach initially developed by Leon Trotsky, the theory of permanent revolution, which had foreseen the outbreak of a socialist revolution in backwards Russia as a manifestation of the international working class’s struggles to take power and overturn over-ripe capitalism on a world scale.

Lenin

When Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks in the middle of 1917, Lenin remarked that "from that time there was no better Bolshevik." Together Lenin and Trotsky oversaw the alliance of workers with the masses of the peasantry and soldiers and ultimately victory in the Russian Civil War. As Lenin later said, “Could any one point out to me another man who could organize an almost model army in a year and even win the respect of military experts? We have such a man!”

Trotsky

The Bolshevik Party was, ultimately, not a party like other parties. It was an organization steeled in the struggle against all opportunism, and steeped in the theoretical traditions of Marxism. Following the start of World War I, the Marxist Internationalists, most significantly the Bolsheviks, fought against the Second International's betrayal of socialist internationalism and support for war. The rise of Bolshevism and the role it played in the turbulent events of 1917 were prepared by and vindicated the centrality of this fight.

The Bolshevik Party demonstrated through its struggle that socialist internationalism is the fundamental element of the real struggle for power. The fate of the Russian Revolution, which resulted from the systemic global contradictions of capitalism, was inseparably connected to the progression of the world socialist revolution.

The Bolshevik Party was different in other ways. The Bolsheviks were a Party based ultimately not on the "labor aristocracy" and the intelligentsia, but a dynamic movement connected to the young and most exploited sections of the working class. As Trotsky noted:

"Bolshevism when underground was always a party of young workers. The Mensheviks relied upon the more respectable skilled upper stratum of the working class, always prided themselves on it, and looked down upon the Bolsheviks. Subsequent events harshly showed them their mistake. At the decisive moment the youth carried with them the more mature stratum and even the old folks."

There was a meaningful and vibrant interplay of viewpoints between the various layers of the movement within and around the Bolsheviks. There were numerous disagreements within the party, befitting an organization that knew how to turn to the revolutionary masses. Lenin frequently found himself on the losing end of such disputes, which occasionally became public despite party discipline.

The essential element in the victory of the Revolution was ultimately the Marxist leadership of the most far-sighted and intransigent Bolsheviks. It is the approach of this leadership that the international working class must deepen our understanding of. However, it is not enough to imitate the Leninist "combat party" as an empty formalism. As Trotsky put it: 

"The moral qualities of every party flow, in the last analysis, from the historical interests that it represents. The moral qualities of Bolshevism - self-renunciation, disinterestedness, audacity and contempt for every kind of tinsel and falsehood - the highest qualities of human nature! - flow from revolutionary intransigence in the service of the oppressed. The Stalinist bureaucracy imitates in this domain the words and gestures of Bolshevism." [emphasis added]

Today Marxism and Internationalism must become wedded to the most militant and oppressed sections of the international working class, on the basis shown to us by Lenin and Trotsky: one that combines the utmost revolutionary intransigence against capitalism, against imperialism and against all sorts of nationalist and anti-Marxist revisionism, with the necessary degree of organizational flexibility and connection to the aspirations of the most revolutionary layers of the working class!

Study the lessons of the October Revolution! 

Forward to the world socialist revolution!