Marxist Internationalism or National Interest?

By Shadab Murtaza

In contemporary left-wing political discourse, particularly in debates surrounding anti-imperialist struggle, two distinct liberal tendencies have become increasingly evident. The first is an openly bourgeois liberal current that accepts the imperialist system as natural, inevitable, and structurally permanent. The second, and more theoretically problematic, tendency presents itself as Marxist or communist while remaining confined—both analytically and politically—within liberalism’s framework of national interest. This latter tendency is especially dangerous precisely because it deploys Marxist terminology and rhetorical forms in order to legitimize capitalist geopolitics, thereby producing conceptual confusion and diluting the theoretical clarity of Marxism.

Within leftist, progressive, and democratic circles internationally, China has for a considerable period been conceptualized as a socialist state, or at minimum as an anti-imperialist force. On this basis, a persistent and legitimate question has emerged: when countries such as Syria, Palestine, Yemen, and, more recently, Venezuela are subjected to direct imperialist aggression, why does China—if it is genuinely an anti-imperialist power—refrain from undertaking concrete and practical measures in their defense? This question does not originate in a romanticized expectation of a messianic savior, but rather arises logically from the claims advanced by China itself and by those currents that portray it as a central pillar of global anti-imperialist resistance. The urgency of this question has been further intensified by the open threats of military aggression issued by representatives of U.S. imperialism, including former President Donald Trump, following acts of aggression against Venezuela.

These developments have placed China-aligned segments of the left in a pronounced theoretical dilemma. Until recently, these circles depicted China and Russia as leaders of the global anti-imperialist movement, as decisive counterweights to U.S. and NATO imperial ambitions, and as strategic anchors for the Global South. However, when the issue of direct and practical support has been raised, this position has been significantly revised. The prevailing argument now asserts that each state must defend itself against imperialism, while China and Russia can offer only limited and indirect forms of assistance—such as diplomatic support, investment, arms transfers, or military training—rather than direct intervention.

The justification offered for this shift rests on the claim that China and Russia are embedded within the global capitalist economic system, and that providing direct, practical assistance to states facing imperialist aggression would jeopardize their national interests. According to this argument, no state—regardless of whether it identifies as socialist or anti-imperialist—can fully extricate itself from the global capitalist system, and therefore none can take actions that would seriously undermine its position within that system. For example, it is suggested that direct support for Venezuela by China or Russia would provoke severe economic sanctions from U.S. imperialism, thereby damaging their economies and geopolitical standing. On this basis, the anti-imperialist struggle is subordinated to considerations of national interest, while this subordination is rebranded as “Marxist realism” or “pragmatic Marxist geopolitics.”

From a theoretical standpoint, this argument exposes a fundamental contradiction. The deep integration of China and Russia into the global capitalist economy—such that imperialist powers can exert coercive pressure through sanctions and other economic instruments—and their evident concern over such retaliation, directly challenges claims that these states function as socialist or anti-imperialist leaders at the global level. If such leadership were genuinely being exercised, one of two conditions would be expected to prevail: either these states would not be so structurally dependent on the imperialist economic system, or they would be willing to assume leadership in the anti-imperialist struggle despite the economic and political costs involved. As Lenin repeatedly emphasized, any force that seeks to confront imperialism in a substantive manner must be prepared to accept far-reaching sacrifices.

It is crucial to stress that the issue at hand is not the assignment of fixed or absolute labels—such as “imperialist” or “anti-imperialist”—to China or Russia. No state possesses an immutable or ahistorical character. Rather, the decisive questions concern political orientation, strategic trajectory, and concrete practice. A state that prioritizes securing a relatively stable and advantageous position within the imperialist system, rather than actively working toward its rupture, and that regards direct action against imperialist aggression as incompatible with its national interests, cannot coherently be designated as the leader of a global anti-imperialist movement. This remains true even if such a state’s foreign policy contributes, in limited ways, to constraining imperialist unipolarity.

The assertion advanced by these circles—that expecting practical assistance from China and Russia amounts to a naïve or irrational longing for a messiah—constitutes a serious distortion of Marxist internationalism. Marxist–Leninist internationalism has never implied that oppressed nations should passively await external liberation. On the contrary, it presupposes that oppressed peoples actively and independently struggle for their own liberation, while recognizing that such struggles are strengthened through international cooperation, coordination, and material solidarity. To equate the demand for international assistance with an attempt to “outsource” national defense or evade responsibility reflects a shallow and distinctly liberal reinterpretation of Marxist theory.

If this logic were accepted, then the historical practice of Marxist internationalism would be rendered incoherent. Soviet Russia under Lenin would stand accused of violating Marxist principles by providing military assistance to Turkey, Iran, Mongolia, China, and other countries confronting imperialist aggression or pursuing national liberation. Likewise, military support for China’s resistance against Japanese imperialism, direct engagement in defense of Korea against U.S. aggression, and solidarity with occupied European populations in the struggle against fascism would all be reclassified as departures from Marxist internationalism. According to this reasoning, socialist states should have confined themselves exclusively to their own national interests and abstained from practical solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles out of fear of imperialist retaliation. Historical materialism not only rejects this conclusion but demonstrates that such a position is politically disabling and strategically disastrous for the anti-imperialist struggle.

The case of Cuba provides a concrete counterexample. The Cuban state has confirmed that more than thirty Cuban soldiers were killed during U.S. aggression against Venezuela, having been deployed there at the request of the Venezuelan government. Cuban leadership has openly declared its willingness to make further sacrifices in defense of Venezuelan sovereignty. Cuba’s direct and material support for anti-imperialist and national liberation movements constitutes one of the most significant chapters in the history of socialist internationalism. It exemplifies Marxist internationalism not as an abstract moral principle but as a concrete political practice. By contrast, while Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has repeatedly stated that China expressed its commitment to defending Venezuela’s sovereignty—and while China has reiterated such commitments—these declarations are rendered practically meaningless when dismissed under the rubric of “pragmatic Marxist geopolitics.”

In effect, this represents a departure from the core principles of Marxist internationalism.

What emerges from this analysis is a clear substitution of Marxist internationalism with liberal notions of individualism and national self-interest. In classical liberal and capitalist political theory, both individuals and states are conceived as autonomous entities responsible solely for the pursuit of their own interests, a framework that is then directly transposed onto international relations and foreign policy. This logic underpins the view that each state bears exclusive responsibility for its own defense and that national interest constitutes the ultimate criterion of political action. Consequently, states subjected to imperialist aggression are advised not to expect practical assistance from China or Russia, while the latter are encouraged to limit their engagement to diplomatic rhetoric, investment, arms sales, and compliance with the rules of the global capitalist order.

In this way, the genuine Marxist principle of internationalism is displaced by the capitalist principle of national interest, and this displacement is presented as a “Marxist dialectical analysis” of international politics. Marxist internationalism, by contrast, articulates a fundamentally different standard: those states and forces that claim allegiance to socialism and anti-imperialism, and that possess greater economic, military, and political capacities, bear proportionately greater responsibilities. Leadership in the anti-imperialist struggle entails a willingness to assume greater risks, incur higher costs, and actively disengage from the structures of imperialist domination. Rather than merely managing or stabilizing the imperialist system through multipolar balancing, such leadership seeks to intensify its contradictions, deepen its fractures, and provide maximal support to forces actively confronting it. Abandoning this criterion reduces anti-imperialist politics to the technocratic management of a multipolar imperialist order—a position that aligns not with Marxism, but with a softened variant of liberal state realism.

Shadab Murtaza is a Communist political activist of Marxist-Leninist tradition living in Pakistan. He has been a member of the Communist Party of Pakistan and Pakistan Mazdoor Kissan Party (Workers-Peasants Party). He writes on issues and questions related to national and international Communist politics.