Theses on Anti-imperialism

Juni 2006


I. Understanding the nature of the semi-colonies

1. In the 19th Century capitalism led to a rapid expansion of the productive forces. With the end of the 19th Century they came to their limits. The concentration of production and capital led to the rise of monopolies which were more and more undermining the freedom of capitalist competition. Banking and industrial capital merged to form financial capital, which won a decisive influence on the state apparatus. The export of capital increased its importance compared to the export of commodities. International monopolies divided the markets and the natural resources. In general the planet's resources were distributed in accordance with the prevailing balance of power among the monopolies themselves. And finally the territorial division of the earth under the corporations and their related capitalist powers has been more or less completed. In short, the classic competitive capitalism was replaced by imperialism. Capitalism entered its imperialist stage.

Up until now capitalist society is characterized not only by the fundamental contradiction of capital / labor but also by the contradiction between the developed imperialist countries dominated by imperialism and the semi-colonial or imperialized countries.

2. For more than half a century the direct colonial oppression on a state level was a mark of imperialism. British, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, American, and Belgian colonialism could defend their property until after the Second World War. Meanwhile the colonial empire of German imperialism was divided among its rivals after Germany's defeat in World War One and Japanese and Italian imperialism lost their empires as a result of World War Two.

Under the significant influence of the now dominant imperialist power, the USA, in 1945 the colonies were dismissed into formal independence. This however did not mean the end of imperialist oppression - the openly repressive colonial status was just replaced by an indirect dominance of the now „independent" states. Just as Latin American countries, despite their independence which most of them had already reached at the beginning of the 19th Century, could never really define their own development, but were instead always under economic and political dominance of major powers like Britain or the United States, the formal independence of semi-colonial states is just a scantily disguised form of imperialist exploitation and oppression.

Despite the obvious bureaucratic degeneration the existence of the Soviet Union and other worker states until the early 1990's meant an extended range of options for a series of semi-colonies. In this context, some semi-colonies attempted national development through state capitalist" projects to try to escape the clutches of Imperialism. This development has largely come to an end – stagnation and imperialist pressure have led to the collapse of these states and brought them back into the arms of imperialism. For this range of motion, which was utilized by these states, has declined substantially, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even though the intra-imperialist competition still allows certain maneuvering and tactics for semi-colonies. Despite the continuing formal autonomy and independence of the semi-colonies, geopolitical changes since the beginning of the 1990's generally improved the opportunities of penetration in the semi-colonies for imperialism, although the direct military conquest and occupation like in Iraq or Afghanistan remains an exception in dealing with semi-colonies.

3. Under the concept of semi-colonies, or in other words the imperialized countries, we understand a large group of states, the states in this group are highly different. Among the countries, summarized in this group, are some of the most backward countries on this planet, such as Mali, Chad, Niger and Somalia, countries that in the past undertook isolated efforts of national development, such as Algeria and South Yemen, or states, which – in strict subordination to imperialism and in the division of labor with global corporations – attempted to catch up with the advanced imperialist countries, such as South Korea, Thailand or Malaysia.

Because this development is blocked by imperialism, semi-colonies in the future too will only be able to catch up with imperialism under very special conditions and in exceptional cases. Nevertheless, none of the semi-colonies in the 20th Century was able to avoid the law of uneven and combined development. All these societies have gone through rapid change, they were forced into a fundamental transformation. To name just a few examples: Countries such as Thailand no longer export mainly raw materials, but to two-thirds machinery, vehicles and industrial products, Malaysia's export revenues come half from electronic components and semiconductors, and a further quarter from machinery and chemical products. In India a highly skilled and specialized working class in the software and computer industry emerged – an increasing number of international companies prefer to have their accounting done in Kolkata, Jaipur or Bangalore instead of in their home countries.

Of course, this development was limited to a few countries, uneven and unbalanced: Bolivia still exports almost exclusively mining and agricultural products. Even the relatively rich Libya exports to 95 percent crude oil and natural gas, and to another 4 percent (petro-) chemical products. More than 50% of the export of Burkina Faso is based on a single product, cotton, whilst 60% of the exports of Malawi are (raw) tobacco...

In general, however, in the course of the 20th century, also in the (semi-) colonies feudal, tribal and pre-capitalist societies as a whole decomposed mostly. Capitalism has therefore become the dominant economic form. Compared to the beginning of the 20th Century there has emerged a working class in virtually all semi-colonial countries. The once vital agricultural sector has in many semi-colonies also lost its once-powerful position. Of course, countries like South Korea, where only a tenth of the population is employed in Agriculture, compare that to countries such as Madagascar, where still three quarters of all employed people do agricultural work. But even here, in other less-developed semi-colonial countless, that were driven into the slums of the sprawling cities, the industry already generated 15 percent of the gross domestic product.

In imperialized countries too not only the bourgeoisie but also the proletariat and the layers around the working class, like the semi-proletariat and the marginally employed layers, which in the last decades have increased massively, have become a significant political force. Of course the solution of the agrarian question is still a crucial task of a bourgeois-democratic character. But the contradiction between the impoverished rural masses and the (pre-capitalist) estate, which is more and more merging with the capitalist property in international agricultural companies, is in many semi-colonies no longer the dominant social structure determining this contradiction.

4. This does not mean that in the imperialized countries the tasks of the bourgeois democracy have already been met. The agrarian problem in most countries is still completely unresolved. The peasants are exposed to a massive process of impoverishment and are forced to migrate to the cities where they increase the mass of the underemployed. While the best lands are reserved for export production, the peasantry has less and less to counter the growing competition from the exports of foodstuffs, textiles etc., which is massively supported by the imperialist countries.

The national question is also unresolved in a great number of countries. Imperialism has by the distribution of the planet torn apart habitats and soil and created state structures, which are often entirely artificial that hinder the exchange and destroy ethnic structures. The national independence has not brought national sovereignty to a large proportion of the imperialized but only a continuation of oppression and a massive obstacle to cultural progress.

Even bourgeois democratic demands such as equal voting rights, equality before the law regardless of gender and ethnicity, etc. are not a matter of course and have to be fought for arduously in most semi-colonies.

5. The changes in the course of the 20th Century even the major development boosts in some countries, have changed nothing about the military, political and economic dependence of the semi-colonies. Backwardness and economic imbalances continue to be basic characteristics of the imperialist world order.
Therefore, as before, the answers developed by the revolutionary workers are still valid. Indeed these answers are even more important today due to the increased mass of the proletariat and the urban poor. However, the increasing influence of reactionary-culturalist movements such as Islamism, Christian fundamentalism or Hindu chauvinism, currents which also have an increased influence in migrant communities in the imperialist countries, do require new answers too.

II. Basic axes of anti-imperialist politics

6. The Communist International in its early years dealt systematically with the revolution in the semi-colonies and granted it a high priority. In the 21 conditions for admission to the Comintern in 1920 it was said:
„Every party that wishes to belong to the Communist International has the obligation of exposing the dodges of its 'own' imperialists in the colonies, of supporting every liberation movement in the colonies not only in words but in deeds, of demanding that their imperialist compatriots should be thrown out of the colonies, of cultivating in the hearts of the workers in their own country a truly fraternal relationship to the working population in the colonies and to the oppressed nations, and of carrying out systematic propaganda among their own country's troops against any oppression of colonial peoples."

Also today revolutionaries in imperialist countries have to pay special attention to the politics of their own country, and that of other imperialist countries, in the semi colonies. They have to stress that the main enemy is its own imperialism and that establishing of fraternal relations between the worker movement in the imperialist countries and oppressed masses of the imperialized countries should be one of their prime objectives.

7. For us the tactics in wars between Imperialism and the semi-colonial countries, as developed by the Bolsheviks and the early Communist International, which was continued and improved by the International Left Opposition, is still completely valid. More than that: since the beginning of the 1990s and the increase of aggressive imperialist policy, it has regained a special actuality.

Of course, socialists have always condemned wars among nations as a barbaric and brutal matter. But our position on war is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists. Marxists have the insight in the immutable context of war and class struggle. We fully recognize the justification, progressiveness and necessity of civil wars, as long as they are wars of the oppressed class against the oppressing class, the slaves against the slaveholders, the serfs and peasants against the landlords, the wage labourers against the bourgeoisie. And we consider it necessary to analyze any war in its specificity. Despite all the horrors, atrocities, suffering and distress inevitably associated with every war, there are progressive wars that brought benefits to the development of humanity because they helped to undermine absolutism or serfdom or the most barbaric despotisms. Lenin in 1914/1915 made the revolutionary position for war between an imperialist country and a semi-colony was unequivocally clear:

„For example, if tomorrow Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be 'just', 'defensive' wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathize with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave-owning, predatory 'great' powers." (Lenin: Socialism and war. – 1914/1915, emphasis in original)

The early Communist International approved this position of solidarity with the colonies and semi-colonies in a number of documents and has afterwards been defended by Trotsky and the International Left Opposition against the Stalinist degeneration. In 1935, when Ethiopia was attacked by fascist Italy, Trotsky was for the defeat of Italy and the victory of Ethiopia.

Haile Selassie's Ethiopia at that time was a reactionary regime of serfdom and feudal structures – but the left opposition opposed unconditionally all the imperialist attack on a backward semi-colony, as Trotsky put it in 1936:

„If Mussolini triumphs, it means the reinforcement of fascism, the strengthening of imperialism, and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. The victory of the Negus, however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples. One must really be completely blind not to see this." (Trotsky, Leon: On Dictators and the Height of Oslo. A Letter to an English Comrade.)

For Trotsky, this was as much a question of feudal versus modern society as it was in other cases a question of democracy versus fascism or dictatorship. Trotsky made this clear on the example of Brazil 1938:
„In Brazil there now reigns a semi-fascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, that tomorrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally – in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat." (Trotsky: Anti-Imperialist Struggle is the Key to Liberation)

Exactly this method has to be used today; In conflicts between imperialism and imperialized countries, oppressed by imperialism, it is not about an issue of enforcement of democracy and human rights. If imperialism has consolidated its rule, all invocations of humanity and freedom will soon be forgotten. So we have to be, no matter how sympathetic the political regime of semi-colony may be, on the other side of the barricade as imperialism and work towards its defeat. In what form the support of the struggle of the semi-colony takes is dependent on the specific conditions.

8. Revolutionaries today cannot seamlessly and fully adopt the methodology of the early Communist International. This method itself was by then still in the process of development. At its founding congress the Comintern was, influenced by the hope of a swift victory of world revolution in the imperialist core countries – assuming that the liberation of the colonies was only possible in addition with the liberation of the imperialist core, as stated in the manifesto that Leon Trotsky put forward. Socialist Europe was to assist the liberated colonies with its technique, its organization, and its spiritual influence, to facilitate their transition to an organized, planned socialist economy. The colonial peoples have not yet been granted with any independent role in this process.

With the Second World Congress of the Comintern in July 1920 there was for the first time a Marxist program of national and colonial question presented, the principles of nationalities and colonial question, which had the fundamental idea of a distinction between oppressed and oppressor countries at its core, and in which the colonial peoples were treated as an independent subject in their own liberation.

The Comintern, however, could not get to a consistent theory of the colonial revolution. On the one hand it expressed the slogan „Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples around the world, unite!", on the other hand the class nature of the future revolution in colonial countries stayed indefinite. In its consequence the Comintern accepted the fact that the Bolshevik formula of the democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants, which was to be overcome in 1917, was appropriate for the colonial revolution and that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist revolution, as they were with the April Theses in 1917 formulated by the Bolsheviks as a target, should only be applied to the conditions in most advanced countries and the Russian special class situation. A generalization of the Russian experience for the colonial world, what would have meant stepping up the pace of the colonial revolution to socialist revolution and the dropping of the formula of the democratic dictatorship, has not beeb done during the time of the first four World Congresses of the Comintern. In essence the colonial policies, which remained shaped by a stage theory, saw the target in a national democratic, not a socialist revolution.

Only in the course of the discussion of the defeat of Chinese Revolution of 1927/1928 was Trotsky able to draw the necessary lessons for the colonial revolution and applied the methodology of permanent revolution for the imperialized countries too. For the left opposition in the late 1920s it had become clear that the proletariat in the semi-colonies had to play a key role in the future colonial-revolutionary process. On the example of India Trotsky characterized the situation in 1930:

„It is true that the Indian proletariat occupy a smaller numerical place in the composition of the population than even the Russian proletariat on the eve of 1905 and 1917. (...) If today the Indian proletariat is numerically weaker than the Russian this in itself does not at all pre-determine the smaller swing of its revolutionary possibilities, just as the numerical weakness of the Russian proletariat compared to the American and British was no hindrance to the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. On the contrary all those social peculiarities which made possible and unavoidable the October revolution are present in India in a still sharper form. In this country of poor peasants, the hegemony of the city has no less clear a character than in tsarist Russia. The concentration of industrial, commercial and banking power in the hands of the big bourgeoisie, primarily the foreign bourgeoisie, on the one hand; a swift growth of a sharply-defined proletariat, on the other, excludes the possibility of an independent role of the petty bourgeoisie of the city and to an extent the intellectuals and transforms by this the political mechanics of the revolution into a struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie for the leadership of the peasant masses. So far there is 'only' one condition missing: a Bolshevik Party. And that is where the problem lies now." (Leon Trotsky: The Revolution in India)

The conditions that Trotsky worked out for India and assigned to the proletariat a crucial role in the revolutionary process of the colonies and semi-colonies, are today objectively valid to a far greater extent than at the end of the late 1920's / early 1930's: The proletariat has in many semi-colonies risen numerically to become the dominant class. In all these countries today the hegemony of the city over the village and the class differences between foreign and local bourgeoisie on the one hand and working class on the other, even more clearly and makes an independent revolutionary role of the petty bourgeoisie of the cities and the in itself deeply divided peasantry even more illusory as it already was at the time of the founding of the Communist International.

We note therefore, that only the struggle of the workers, supported by the impoverished masses of the slums, the rural sections of the villages and the urban petty bourgeoisie, is able to give the revolution in the imperialized countries a perspective, that only under the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat can the existing dependence on imperialism can be overthrown and the tasks of bourgeois democracy completed.

The methodology of permanent revolution does of course not assume that questions of bourgeois democracy have already been resolved. On the contrary: Even basic democratic rights are not yet won in semi-colonies, the national question remains unresolved in many countries, the agrarian question remains of the same importance. Bourgeois democracy and democratic rights as claims are still on the agenda. We assume however, that the path of the struggle for even basic civil liberties does not cross the path of compromise with "progressive" sections of the ruling bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state apparatus of these countries. Also one cannot trust the democratic "ambitions" of imperialism, when imperialism once again should be ready to put the whole land in ruins "for democracy and freedom".

The way to win the battle of fundamental freedoms and the satisfaction of vital interests, also of the petit bourgeoisie in town and country, is via the spontaneous activity of the working class, together with the other oppressed and exploited layers, and the prospect of fighting for their own class goals. This means, among other things, the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus and its replacement by workers councils. And it means the political and organizational independence of proletarian organizations, and particularly of a revolutionary party, as a fundamental condition for the hegemony of the working class in the revolution.

9. Although the Communist International did not develop a consistent vision of the colonial revolution, before the decline of the colonial strategy of the Comintern and before its reformist degeneration in the 1930's, the time of the first four world congresses, the Comintern has clung on to one of the most decisive demands, that the class independence of the proletariat and proletarian organizations must hold on to it, even if these organizations are in an embryonic state.

The climax in the anti-colonial policy debate of the Comintern was at the IV World Congress at the end of 1922. In the meantime, the communist organizations in a number of colonial countries had been able to gain practical experience, they were now in a position to substantiate their recent assessments. That meant more debate about the possibilities for cooperation with national-revolutionary forces.

For the IV World Congress the bearers of the will of the nation state independence could be the most „diverse elements". For this reason the Communist International decided that „any national revolutionary movement against imperialism" has to be supported. As a condition was formulated:

„That only a consistent revolutionary line, aimed to include the broadest masses in active combat, and the absolute break with all advocates of reconciliation with imperialism, in the interest of their own class rule can lead the oppressed masses to victory."

In the Guiding Principles for the Eastern question analogous to the workers' united front between Communist and reformist organizations in the imperialist countries, the anti-imperialist united front as an open alliance between communist parties and bourgeois-national, national-revolutionary movements, which are prepared to fight in semi-colonial countries against imperialism, was developed as a tactic. Its purpose could be military resistance against colonial domination, as well as common demonstrations, strikes or other forms of political action. Included in such an anti-imperialist united front should be petty-bourgeois strata and even parts of the bourgeoisie, so it included different classes with different interests who rebelled under certain conditions together against imperialist forces. But it remained clear:

„The workers movement in the colonial and semi-colonial countries must primarily fight for the position of an independent revolutionary factor in the overall anti-imperialist front. Only when its own self-importance is attributed to it and while it retained its political independence, temporary alliances with the forces of bourgeois democracy are acceptable and necessary."

Since the Second World Congress of the Comintern an alliance with a bourgeois liberation movement was considered possible. As conditions for it were established that they had to be ready to recognise the independence of the proletarian party and to allow the revolutionary organization of the exploited masses by the communists. The vast majority of potential bourgeois Allies was of course not willing to meet these demands.
Under special conditions an active role of the colonial bourgeoisie as an organizer of the national-revolutionary process of these countries is not excluded. But this could and can today only be the exception and not the rule. Because of the historical class situation in which the colonial bourgeoisie and then the semi-colonial bourgeoisie today is, wedged between its own proletariat, peasantry, and its own superior imperialist competition – it is less and less able to play a historically progressive role.

In this lays the main problem of the positioning of the Guidelines on the national question; The slogan of the anti-imperialist united front as a general perspective was for itself not opportunist, it could, in certain well-defined exceptional situations, offer a contribution to a revolutionary strategy in colonial countries. But since the special was declared the general, the anti-imperialist united front had either degenerated to an empty shell for propaganda, or it had to be „adapted" to the situation. And that could only mean that, without declaring so, the conditions for the occurrence of such a united front have been revised.

The development of the Comintern in the next few years showed that under the same shell, both the right opportunist colonial policy of the years 1925-1927 and that of the then following ultra-left turn took place, only in the first case the block with the colonial bourgeoisie was put into the foreground and in the second case the same solution degenerated into a mere propaganda term with no real content. In practice of the subjective communist left of the last decades dominated especially the political subordination to supposedly progressive, bourgeois anti-imperialist movements and regimes. Without therefore excluding the abstract possibility of an anti-imperialist united front within the meaning of the Fourth World Congress the solution must after all be attributed in a very limited role, even in the propaganda.

10. The anti-imperialist united front was an open alliance between a proletarian and a bourgeois anti-imperialist organization, therefore a closer relationship than just the support of the struggle of a dependent colonial country against imperialist aggression. The anti-imperialist front was about a realized (although in practice only in rare cases possible) battle front. On the other hand in the support against imperialist aggression, are for example ad-hoc coordination for concrete single action and solidarity actions in the center of activity.

Obviously we make our overall position in the conflict of an imperialized country with the clenched power of imperialism not depending on whether the political leadership of this imperialized country is ready to enter an alliance with us. For as the revolutionary, anti-imperialist left is only a minor factor in the most imperialist core countries, every other approach would be a complete misunderstanding of the current balance of power. Our position on the attack of the „coalition of the willing", led by the USA, on the „rogue state" Iraq was developed regardless of whether the regime of Saddam Hussein was prepared to a common battle front, because for marxists and the workers movement imperialism is the main enemy, whose triumph we even in a war against a brutal butcher in a semi-colony regard as a greater evil than the temporary strengthening of a dictatorial regime oppressed by imperialism.

Unlike in the common fighting fronts, this case of concrete actions in solidarity, in action units, joint demonstrations, etc. In contrast to an anti-imperialist united front for this course a discussion of conditions that goes beyond the assessment of the concrete situation would not be required. Such agreements are based on current analysis and do not require any tactical or strategic considerations for the long term. Also in the case of support for a national-revolutionary struggle by proletarian-revolutionary organization the situation is different. Here again adherence to previously made conditions is not mandatory, for as this case is an essentially unilateral solidarity action, whose justification, regardless of the specific policy of bourgeois anti-imperialist organizations or of political physiognomy of the leadership of a semi-colonial country, is only dependent on the objective situation.

Today we are, on the basis of the failure of most conceptions of modernisation on a bourgeois-capitalist fundament (especially in the context of tightening economic scope) and conditioned by the weakness of the proletarian revolutionary subjective factor, confronted with a shift of the broader population to religious, fundamentalist and reactionary tendencies in a series of imperialized countries. The same is true in the imperialist core countries where these religious, fundamentalist currents have also won influence among migrants. Of course Islamist movements are not one iota more or less sympathetic than, say, Christian-fundamentalist currents and a potential and sometimes even an actual danger to any proletarian-revolutionary policy. However, e.g. Islamism in the imperialist core countries has become an expression of the growing sentiment and reality of political and social marginalization of migrants, cultural chauvinism and racism, and also of the ideological and actual fight against these phenomena and the growing discontent about the brutality of imperialism in much of the countries from which these populations originate.

Consequently the question poses itself also for us of how we, while maintaining our political struggle against all forms of political and religious obscurantism, relate ourselves in an anti-war movement towards Islamist movements if they organize mobilizations against imperialist aggression or join them. Should we pursue joint action with these reactionaries?

The answer depends on the actual balance of forces. Compared to isolated organized groups of e.g. islamists, which have no connection with a wider environment of working class migrants from islamic countries, we think a commitment to their involvement in an alliance with them, is not going to be useful and could even be counterproductive, because these reactionaries so get upgraded unnecessarily.

The situation is different if for example organized islamists which are connected to a large number of (immigrant) workers, such as Pakistanis in Britain or North Africans in France demonstrate. Then it would be necessary to form an anti-imperialist unity of action with Islamist forces, to show in the common struggle that the revolutionary left has to offer a consistent perspective in the struggle against the imperialist system and to fight against the islamist for the hearts and minds of the demonstrating migrants.

11. Consequent anti-imperialism in the imperialist countries today means not only to support the fight against the immediate threat of imperialized countries and to organize it in the imperialist core countries. Masses of desperate people try year after year to reach Europe or North America. Thousands upon thousands die in the effort. The iron curtain which foreclosed the bureaucratic workers states and which the rulers of the bourgeois states shed so many crocodile tears has found its direct, inhuman continuation in the border fence by the U.S. and Mexico and the border security of the European Union with regard to North Africa. While the story of the Vietnamese boat people filled the pages of bourgeois newspapers the tragedy of the thousands of Africans who attempt to reach Italy or the Spanish mainland in rickety boats, who, all too often are simply thrown overboard by unscrupulous traffickers , die every day has become a fact about which hardly a word is written.

The asylum laws are progressively more restrictive. Even dictatorships can mutate into „safe third countries" to which people can be deported easily. The discussions about the construction of refugee camps in Africa is to discourage even the bravest and the most desperate of them to cross the border between semi-colonies and imperialism, for example to cross the Mediterranean, in search of work and a decent life.

Our aim must be to demand offensively the freedom of migration and denounce the closure of imperialist countries as what it really is, an inhuman measure which contradicts even with the norms of bourgeois democracy. Our position is clear: Anything under whatever pretext, that hinders free movement is undermining the goal of a joint solidarity fighting front of the workers movement in the imperialist core countries and the exploited in the imperialized countries and therefore strengthens imperialism in its attempts to chain the workers ideologically.

Trotsky in 1938 summed up his position in „Fascism and the colonial world". The statements are today more accurate than ever. One has just to replace the words „colonialist regime" with „neocolonial regime":

„The future of humanity is inseparably linked with the destiny of India, China, Indochina, Latin America, and Africa. The active sympathy, friendship, and support of genuine revolutionists, socialists, and honest democrats is completely on the side of these peoples – who constitute the majority of humanity – and not on the side of their oppressors, no matter what kind of political masks they appear in. Those, who actively or even passively support a colonial regime under the pretext of defending their own ‚democracy' are the worst enemies of the working classes and oppressed peoples. We and they are traveling very different roads."

Manfred Scharinger