An Essay (with 5 Tables) by Michael Pröbsting, Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 24 Oktober 2025, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

Contents

 

Introduction

 

What are semi-colonies?

 

Why is there an increase of wars between semi-colonies?

 

On the Marxist principles in wars

 

The Marxist approach to wars between semi-colonies

 

Revolutionary defeatism and defencism

 

“People’s war” and permanent revolution

 

War tactics today

 

Summary

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

We are living in a historic period which has been characterised by militarism and wars. Such conflicts include imperialist wars against oppressed countries as well as conflicts between Great Powers. However, in the past decade or so another type of conflict – military tensions and wars between capitalist semi-colonies – has also become an increasingly important feature of the world situation. Governments are threatening each other with wars, impose sanctions, bomb their neighbours or start an outright invasion.

 

To name a few examples we refer to the conflicts between India and Pakistan in 2020 and 2025 and between the latter and Afghanistan in 2025; the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia in 2025; the invasion of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Yemen which started in 2015, their blockade and threat of war against Qatar in 2017-21, as well as their tensions with Iran; the reciprocal bombardment between Iran and Pakistan in 2024; the civil wars in Libya and Sudan in which other semi-colonial states intervene; or the looming wars in East Africa involving Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia.

 

Of course, such type of conflicts exist already since the 1950s and 1960s when nearly all colonies became formally independent. Take, for example, the three wars between India and Pakistan or the Iraq-Iran War in 1980-88. Still, it is evident that the number of such conflicts has massively increased in the past decade. It is therefore important to elaborate a correct understanding of the nature of wars between semi-colonial countries, even more so as this has been rarely discussed among Marxists.

 

Before we elaborate on the main reasons for the growing number of conflicts between countries of the Global South and its consequences for the program of revolutionaries, we shall briefly explain the term semi-colony.

 

 

 

What are semi-colonies?

 

 

 

The global order is characterised by the imperialist system in which Great Powers and monopolies dominate global politics and economy and exploit the rest of the world. Hence, Marxists divide the world in imperialist and semi-colonial countries. Recognising such class contradictions between imperialist states and semi-colonial countries are essential; in fact, this is no less important for understanding the developments of global capitalism than recognising the contradictions between classes within a society. Lenin repeatedly emphasised the centrality of the division of the world between oppressor and oppressed nations.

 

“Imperialism means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers (…) That is why the focal point in the Social-Democratic programme must be that division of nations into oppressor and oppressed which forms the essence of imperialism, and is deceitfully evaded by the social-chauvinists and Kautsky. This division is not significant from the angle of bourgeois pacifism or the philistine Utopia of peaceful competition among independent nations under capitalism, but it is most significant from the angle of the revolutionary struggle against imperialism.“ ^[1]

 

Among the most important imperialist states are the Great Powers U.S., China, Russia, several Western European states and Japan. Semi-colonies are capitalist countries which are formally independent but, in the end, dominated by Great Powers and monopolies. And, we note in passing, there also still exists a small number of colonies occupied by imperialist powers.

 

Naturally, one has to differentiate within these two categories as there are various types of imperialist respectively semi-colonial countries. There are economically strong but military much weaker Great Powers (e.g. Germany or Japan) and vice versa (e.g. Russia). Likewise, one also has to differentiate between different types of semi-colonies. Clearly, there exist huge differences today between Peru and Argentina or Brazil, Congo and Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey, Nepal and Thailand, Kazakhstan and Poland. Some countries are more industrialized than others, some have achieved a certain political latitude and others have not. Hence, we can differentiate between advanced or industrialized semi-colonies like Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Iran, Poland or Thailand, on one hand, and poorer or semi-industrialized semi-colonies like Bolivia, Peru, the Sub-Saharan African countries (except South Africa), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc, on the other hand.

 

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that these different types of semi-colonies have much more in common than what differentiates between them, as Trotsky has already pointed out:

 

“Colonial and semi-colonial – and therefore backward – countries, which embrace by far the greater part of mankind, differ extraordinarily from one another in their degree of backwardness, representing an historical ladder reaching from nomadry, and even cannibalism, up to the most modern industrial culture. The combination of extremes in one degree or another characterizes all of the backward countries. However, the hierarchy of backwardness, if one may employ such an expression, is determined by the specific weight of the elements of barbarism and culture in the life of each colonial country. Equatorial Africa lags far behind Algeria, Paraguay behind Mexico, Abyssinia behind India or China. With their common economic dependence upon the imperialist metropolis, their political dependence bears in some instances the character of open colonial slavery (India, Equatorial Africa), while in others it is concealed by the fiction of State independence (China, Latin America).” ^[2]

 

So what is the essence of semi-colonial countries? In our works on imperialism, which include several case studies of semi-colonies, [3] the RCIT has elaborated the following definition: A semi-colonial country is a capitalist state whose economy and state apparatus have a position in the world order where they first and foremost are dominated by other states and nations. As a result, they create extra-profits and give other economic, political and/or military advantages to the imperialist monopolies and states through their relationship based on super-exploitation and oppression. [4]

 

One important consequence of this analysis is the peculiar nature of the ruling class in such semi-colonial countries. The domestic bourgeoisie rules these states only to a certain degree as such countries are overall dominated by imperialist monopoly capital and their Great Powers. As Trotsky said, the bourgeoisie of semi-colonial countries is “a semi-ruling, semi-oppressed class.“

 

“The internal regime in the colonial and semi-colonial countries has a predominantly bourgeois character. But the pressure of foreign imperialism so alters and distorts the economic and political structure of these countries that the national bourgeoisie (even in the politically independent countries of South America) only partly reaches the height of a ruling class. The pressure of imperialism on backward countries does not, it is true, change their basic social character since the oppressor and oppressed represent only different levels of development in one and the same bourgeois society. Nevertheless the difference between England and India, Japan and China, the United States and Mexico is so big that we strictly differentiate between oppressor and oppressed bourgeois countries and we consider it our duty to support the latter against the former. The bourgeoisie of colonial and semi-colonial countries is a semi-ruling, semi-oppressed class.“ ^[5]

 

 

 

Why is there an increase of wars between semi-colonies?

 

 

 

Why do we see an increasing number of military conflicts between capitalist semi-colonies? There are, of course, a number of reasons but the most important ones are a result of the features of capitalist decay in the current historic period.

 

The declining dynamic of growth of the capitalist world economy since the early 1970s has substantially accelerated since the Great Recession in 2008. The slumps in 2008/09 and 2019/20 were the worst since the depression in 1920-33. Even in the upswing periods of the business cycle, growth is much lower than it was before. As a result, manufacturing in the U.S. has more or less stagnated in the last years and is still below the level of 2019 (and much below the level of 2007). [6]

 

The worst consequences of such economic crisis are felt in the semi-colonial countries as they are economically the weakest link in the capitalist chain. Their public debt has grown since 2010 by more than 240% - twice as fast than in Western imperialist countries. Consequently, semi-colonial countries have to pay higher interest to imperialist financial institutions. In 2024, developing countries paid a record US$ 921 billion in interest. Africa spends more on interest than on health or education. The number of developing countries spending more than 5% of export income on external public debt service has increased from 35 (2010) to 64 (2023). [7]

 

Likewise, while the whole world experiences the devastating consequences of capitalist climate change, poorer countries suffer particularly as global warming provokes water scarcity, expansion of deserts, unbearable heat waves, floodings, destruction of flora and fauna, etc. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of people are dying and millions are forced to flee their home.

 

It is only logical that in such conditions, the struggle between classes as well as within the ruling class of semi-colonial countries increases. As a consequence of such political instability, the ruling class tries to deflect public outrage by inciting hatred against national minorities and/or foreign enemies.

 

Such tensions are more likely to result in wars in the current period since the world order has fundamentally changed. Between 1945 and 1991, the global order was shaped by the Cold War between the imperialist powers and the Stalinist states. While these two camps were in conflict with each other, they had an interest to avoid escalation and kept their respective allies under control.

 

When the USSR collapsed, the U.S. became the absolute hegemon. However, capitalist decay, the shift of industrial production to China and the Global South, and humiliating defeats of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in the decline of American imperialism and the rise of China (and Russia) as new Great Powers. This development has been reflected, among others, in the end of America’s leading role in global industrial production and its replacement by China. The UN predicts that by 2030, 45% of world manufacturing will be located in China and only 11% in the U.S. (See Table 1)

 

 

 

Table 1: Share of World Manufacturing Output, China and U.S., 2000-2030 ^[8]

 

                                          2000                    2023                    2030 (Prognosis)

 

China                                6%                       31,8%                  45%

 

U.S.                                   25%                     15%                     11%

 

 

 

Consequently, we have seen a massive acceleration of inter-imperialist rivalry since the beginning of the current historic period in 2008 and even more so since Trump became President.

 

This has dramatic consequences for political relations between semi-colonial countries. When the world order was shaped by the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR had an interest (and the means) to keep local conflicts under control. And when the U.S. dominated the world, it could do the same even more effectively. However, with the rise of China and Russia and their accelerating rivalry with Western powers and with the increasing fragility of the Western alliance itself (which Trump is destroying with his “America First” policy), there exists no longer a dominating cop who could enforce imperialist “law and order”. Consequently, the tensions between semi-colonial countries are accelerating.

 

As we have pointed out in our works on imperialism, the above-mentioned shift of industrial production to China and the Global South is one of the most profound developments in recent history. In the last half century, the share of the old Western imperialist states in world manufacturing output has declined from 85% (1975) to 49% (2018) while the share of China has increased from 2% (1990) to 29% (2018) and that of the semi-colonial countries from 11% (1970) to 22% (2018). (See Table 2) In reality, the share of non-Western countries in capitalist value is even larger given that price-distortion and unequal trade distort these figures in favour of Western powers.

 

 

 

Table 2: World Manufacturing Output by Country Income Group, 1970–2018 ^[9]

 

                                          Share of Total Output

 

                                                                                     1970      1975      1990      2000       2003      2018

 

Developed Countries                                               -             85%       -             -              75%       49%

 

China                                                                          -             -               2%         6%          -             29%

 

Global South without China                                   11%       -             -             -              -             22%

 

Global South including China                                -             15%       -             -              25%       51%

 

 

 

The dramatic shift becomes even more evident if we look to the changes in world manufacturing employment. Up to the early 1970s, the majority of the industrial labour force was located in the old Western imperialist countries. Today, only 18% of the labour force in world manufacturing work in these countries while 40% are located in China and 42% in the semi-colonial countries of the Global South. (See Table 3 and 4)

 

 

 

Table 3: Global Industrial Workforce by Country Income Group, 1950-2010 [10]

 

                                                                                     1950                    1980                    2010

 

More Developed Countries                                    66%                     47%                     21%

 

Less Developed Countries                                      34%                     53%                     79%

 

 

 

Table 4: World Manufacturing Employment (Formal and Informal) by Country Income Group, 2017 ^[11]

 

                           in Millions                       Share

 

World                                                                                         421                                    100

 

Developed Countries                                                              75                                      18%

 

Global South including China                                              346                                     82%

 

China                                                                                         168,6                                  40%

 

Global South without China                                                 177,4                                  42%

 

 

 

If one ranks world manufacturing employment by country, one can also see the geographical concentration of the industrial proletariat. Among the top 20 countries by manufacturing employment (formal and informal employment combined), 70,2% of the workers are located in Eastern and Southern Asia, among which China, India and Indonesia are the largest. (See Table 5)

 

 

 

Table 5: World Manufacturing Employment (Formal and Informal) by Countries, 20 Largest (2017) ^[12]

 

Rank      Country                                           in Millions                        Share

 

World                                                  421                                    100

 

1            China                                              168,6                                  40%

 

2            India                                                63                                      15%

 

3            Indonesia                                       17,7                                    4,2%

 

4            USA                                                 13,3                                     3,2%

 

5            Japan                                              11,8                                     2,8%

 

6            Brazil                                              11,1                                     2,6%

 

7            Russia                                            10,1                                     2,4%

 

8            Vietnam                                          9,2                                     2,2%

 

9            Bangladesh                                    9,0                                     2,1%

 

10          Mexico                                            7,6                                     1,8%

 

11          Germany                                        7,2                                     1,7%

 

12          Turkey                                            6,2                                      1,5%

 

13          Thailand                                         6,0                                     1,4%

 

14          Italia                                                4,2                                     1,0%

 

15          South Korea                                  3,9                                     0,9%

 

16          Taiwan                                           3,8                                      0,9%

 

16          France                                            3,8                                      0,9%

 

18          UK                                                   3,0                                      0,7%

 

19          Poland                                            2,9                                      0,7%

 

20          Malaysia                                        2,8                                      0,7%

 

 

 

These fundamental social-economic changes have massive consequences for semi-colonial countries. It provides the economic fundament for the larger political space to manoeuvre of the ruling class of these states. Sure, given the semi-colonial character of such countries, their bourgeoisie is dependent on and subordinated to the imperialist powers. However, while it can not act independently of imperialist powers in the long run, this does not necessarily mean that it has no independent interests at all or that they would have no limited independent room for maneuver at all.

 

Combined with the fractures of the imperialist world order due to the accelerating Great Power rivalry, this shift does allow the ruling class of semi-colonial countries, under specific circumstances, to utilize conflicts between imperialist powers and to create a space to expand their influence. Likewise, such states can wage wars without asking one or the other Great Power for permission.

 

 

 

On the Marxist principles in wars

 

 

 

The Marxist classics did not elaborate any specific tactics for wars between semi-colonial countries. This is not surprising because in the epoch of imperialism up to the mid of the 20^th century there were hardly any wars between capitalist semi-colonies for the simple reason that most countries of the Global South (except in Latin America) were colonies of Great Powers.

 

The only exception of which we are aware is the so-called Chaco War from 1932 to 1935. It was fought between Bolivia and Paraguay over control of the oil-rich northern part of the Gran Chaco region. Rudolf Klement, one of Trotsky’s secretaries, who was a member of the International Secretariat of the of the Movement for the Fourth International, wrote an important article on the issue of Marxist tactics in wars. In this article, which was praised by Trotsky, he briefly mentions the Chaco War and characterizes it as a proxy war between “masked combat between two foreign imperialisms – England and America”. [13] In such a proxy war of imperialist powers, socialists could neither support one nor the other camp.

 

While the Marxist classics did not say anything about wars between semi-colonies, they left us valuable principles which allow us to elaborate such tactics for today. V.I. Lenin and L. Trotsky – the leaders of the October Revolution in 1917 and the founders of the Third respectively the Fourth International – repeatedly emphasised that to understand the character of a war one has to see which class is waging it and for which goals. Such wrote Lenin:

 

„There are wars and wars. We must be clear as to what historical conditions have given rise to the war, what classes are waging it, and for what ends. Unless we grasp this, all our talk about the war will necessarily be utterly futile, engendering more heat than light.“ ^[14]

 

“The social character of the war, its true meaning, is not determined by the position of the enemy troops (…). What determines this character is the policy of which the war is a continuation (‘war is the continuation of politics’), the class that is waging the war, and the aims for which it is waging this war.” ^[15]

 

Likewise did Trotsky state in a programmatic declaration for an international anti-war congress in 1932:

 

“We Bolshevik-Leninists absolutely reject and denounce the deceptive differentiation between a ‘defensive’ and an ‘offensive’ war. In a war between the capitalist states such a differentiation represents only a diplomatic cover to deceive the people. (…) The revolutionary proletariat distinguishes only between wars of oppression and wars of liberation. The character of a war is defined, not by diplomatic falsifications, but by the class which conducts the war and the objective aims it pursues in that war. The wars of the imperialist states, apart from the pretexts and political rhetoric, are of an oppressive character, reactionary and inimical to the people. Only the wars of the proletariat and of the oppressed nations can be characterized as wars of liberation.“ ^[16]

 

As wars of oppression are reactionary on both sides, Marxists advocate in such conflicts the policy of revolutionary defeatism – “The main enemy is at home” – in both camps. Such wars of oppression on both sides are conflicts between imperialist powers, reactionary wars between states (semi-colonies or Stalinist workers states) or reactionary civil wars between factions of the ruling class.

 

In contrast, the international working class has to support the oppressed peoples in wars of liberation, i.e. they have to work for the defeat of the reactionary camp by any means necessary and aid the progressive camp. Such wars of liberation can be revolutionary civil wars of the working class and the popular masses or of oppressed nationalities, wars of semi-colonial countries against Great Powers or wars of workers states. Naturally, there can be exceptions, e.g. in a world war when a semi-colonial country is a proxy of a Great Power (e.g. Serbia in World War I. ^[17]

 

 

 

The Marxist approach to wars between semi-colonies

 

 

 

Conflicts between capitalist semi-colonial states are highly complicated issues. In principle we oppose the bourgeoisie of all semi-colonies equally. Hence, in abstract, we would take a revolutionary defeatist position in all such conflicts, i.e. standing for defeat on both sides.

 

However, in real life things don’t exist in abstract but under concrete conditions, as part of a concrete totality which is – to speak with Abram Deborin, the leading Soviet philosopher in the 1920s – “the unity of the universal and the particular”. ^[18] Hence, while in some cases wars between semi-colonial countries can be reactionary on both sides, this is not necessarily the case in all such conflicts and, consequently, revolutionary defeatism on both sides is not always the correct tactic.

 

This is why a conflict must be studied in all its aspects, with the general, fundamental, as well as its secondary, particular, characteristics. Such an approach must follow Lenin's dialectical method to study a thing or a process “from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.” [19]

 

In order to better understand this issue, one must return to the question of which class is waging a specific war. As we are discussing the question of conflicts between semi-colonial states, we deal with wars led by semi-colonial capitalist classes. Due to its contradictory place within the imperialist world order, this class is, as Trotsky said in the quote above, a “semi-ruling, semi-oppressed class.”

 

Semi-colonial countries face imperialist oppression and super-exploitation. Hence, the semi-colonial bourgeoisie faces pressure and robbery from imperialist monopolies and powers. At the same time, it also exploits and oppresses its own lower classes. Semi-colonial countries are entangled in the imperialist world order, the global geography of oppression and exploitation. Within this global order, the bourgeoisie of such semi-colonies does not only face imperialist powers and their own lower classes but also the capitalist class of other semi-colonies which face similar conditions.

 

Hence, when analysing the conflict in which a given semi-colonial country is involved one must take into account not only its class character but also its place within the chain of the imperialist world order. To which degree does it play a role in enforcing the imperialist world order, oppressing other nationalities; to which degree is it an obstacle for the interests of this or that Great Power. For these reasons, conflicts between semi-colonial states can be conflated both with conflicts with this or that imperialist power; and, likewise, these can be intermixed with liberation struggles of national minorities, democratic movements, etc. [20]

 

Hence, there exists a fundamental difference in wars waged by imperialist states or by semi-colonial countries. The former are the masters of the imperialist global order; they dominate the world. Wars waged by imperialist powers are always and under any condition reactionary. Things are different with wars waged by semi-colonial bourgeoisies. It is a capitalist class which is fundamentally dependent on and subjugated to imperialism, but which has also, to a certain degree, interests which are independent of or even contradictory to the Great Powers.

 

Interests independent of Great Powers can but must not necessarily have a progressive character. The desire of a faction of the ruling class to carry out a coup d'état and to impose a military dictatorship can be in contrast to the wishes of imperialist powers (e.g. the coup of Raoul Cédras against elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti in 1991). The desire of a semi-colonial bourgeoisie to expand its sphere of influence and to subjugate peoples in their neighbourhood can be a result of their own interests and not because they act as servants of this or that Great Power. (e.g. Iran’s military intervention in the Syrian civil war)

 

To make an analogy, one could say that to certain degree the position of the semi-colonial bourgeoisie in the imperialist world order is similar to the position of the petty bourgeoisie in a capitalist society. It does not have historically progressive interests but depending on specific conditions – the pressure of imperialist powers, of rivalling states and/or of the popular masses – it can play a reactionary role or a limited progressive role.

 

As it is a semi-ruling, semi-oppressed class, its wars can have a reactionary but also a progressive character. Such a conflict with other semi-colonial states can objectively aid or weaken the liberation struggle of oppressed peoples. It can pursue reactionary goals of enriching itself at the cost of its neighbours. It can enforce the imperialist world order, but it can also objectively confront it.

 

When we speak about aiding a given liberation struggle or confronting the imperialist order, we mean this in a historic, objective sense, not because we believe that such a class could act out of any other interest than their capitalist greed for power and profit. However, for Marxists the decisive issue is not the subjective motivation of a given party but its objective role in the historical process, in world politics and the struggle between the classes.

 

 

 

Revolutionary defeatism and defencism

 

 

 

In conflicts between semi-colonies which are reactionary on both sides, Marxists take a revolutionary defeatist position on both sides, i.e. they oppose the war on both states (“The main enemy is at home”) and advocate a policy which aims at transforming such reactionary war into a civil war of the workers and oppressed against their own ruling class (“Turn the guns around”).

 

Socialists in countries involved resolutely oppose all forms of “national unity” with “their” ruling class and reject any chauvinism aimed at wiping up hatred of one people against the other. They work towards organizing opposition against the war in workplaces, neighbourhoods, schools, universities and barracks but also in parliament where possible. Socialists also oppose all kinds of sanctions and measures of trade wars against rivals. Wherever possible, they also advocate cross-border anti-war statements and activities of workers and popular mass organizations of the respective countries involved in the conflict. Such measures can be a strong signal of concrete international working-class solidarity.

 

However, in conflicts where one semi-colonial country pursues a war which has objectively a progressive character by weakening the imperialist order, aiding the liberation struggle of other peoples, etc., Marxists take a revolutionary defensist position on the side of this country, i.e. they work towards its military victory and the defeat of the reactionary camp by any means necessary. Socialists in the reactionary camp will work towards weakening and sabotaging the war efforts of “their” ruling class. Likewise, they will work towards undermining any kind of sanctions and trade wars against the progressive camp. Socialists shall organise practical and propagandistic activities against the war, depending on the concrete conditions of state repression. An important albeit difficult task will be to carry out political agitation among the rank and files soldiers of the reactionary army in order to undermine the control of the generals, to advance mass desertion as well as fraternization with the “enemy”, etc.

 

Socialists in the progressive camp combine military defence with refusal of political support for the bourgeois government. And while they will support the military and practical efforts for the defence, they will oppose any chauvinist propaganda against other peoples. The goal must be the independent organisation of the working class and the popular masses and the political preparation for the replacement of the bourgeois regime with a workers and poor peasants (or popular) government.

 

 

 

“People’s war” and permanent revolution

 

 

 

In those countries which objectively fight for a progressive cause, socialists can advocate the slogan of a “revolutionary people's war” similar to the agitation carried out by Marx and Engels during the revolutionary years of 1848/49. At that time, they identified Tsarist Russia – which constituted the so-called “Holy Alliance” together with the monarchies of Prussia and Austria-Hungary – as the main enemy of the liberation struggle of the European working class and oppressed people. Hence, they advocated a “revolutionary people's war” against Russia (as well as Prussia and Austria-Hungary) during the 1848/49 revolution as a kind of foreign policy equivalent to the strategy of permanent revolution in domestic affairs.

 

In an article during these revolutionary years, Engels called for a “a European war, a people's war”. He explained that thanks to the incompetence and the betrayal of the liberals, such a liberation war against the autocracies had to be combined with a civil war.

 

”Last year the Germans could have undertaken the struggle against Russian oppression, could have liberated the Poles and so waged the war on Russian territory and at Russia's expense. Now, on the contrary, thanks to our sovereigns, the war will be waged on our soil, and at our expense; as matters stand now, the European war of liberation is for Germany at the same time a civil war in which Germans fight against Germans. (…) In short, in the great struggle for freedom which is spreading through the whole of Europe, the Palatinate and Baden will stand on the side of freedom against slavery, of revolution against counter-revolution, of the people against the sovereigns, of revolutionary France, Hungary and Germany against absolutist Russia, Austria, Prussia and Bavaria.“ ^[21]

 

Likewise, Marx and Engels wrote in the same period:

 

„If the Prussians ally themselves with the Russians, the Germans will ally themselves with the French and united they will wage the war of the West against the East, of civilisation against barbarism, of the republic against autocracy. We want the unification of Germany. Only as the result of the disintegration of the large German monarchies, however, can the elements of this unity crystallise. They will be welded together only by the stress of war and revolution.“ [22]

 

„Only a war against Russia would be a war of revolutionary Germany, a war by which she could cleanse herself of her past sins, could take courage, defeat her own autocrats, spread civilisation by the sacrifice of her own sons as becomes a people that is shaking off the chains of long, indolent slavery and make herself free within her borders by bringing liberation to those outside. The more the light of publicity reveals in sharp outlines the most recent events, the more facts confirm our view of the national wars by which Germany has dishonoured her new era.“ ^[23]

 

While the revolution was defeated, Marx and Engels continued to view the Holy Alliance as the main obstacle for the liberation struggle in Europe. Hence, they took the side of the enemies of Tsarist Russia in subsequent wars and even urged these countries to wage the war against Russia more energetically (e.g. of England and France in the Crimean War 1853-56 or of Turkey in 1877-78).

 

Such tactics elaborated by the founding fathers of scientific socialism can be highly useful today when semi-colonial countries face similar situations. As we noted somewhere else, this was the case during the process of the Arab Revolution which started in 2011, and which provoked several military conflicts. ^[24]

 

However, this does not mean that revolutionary developments have to take place before socialists can advocate a “revolutionary people's war”. War and revolution represent the highest state of contradictions in a class society. As such these are often interrelated with each other. This is why Lenin spoke already during the Russo-Japanese war in 1904/05 about “the great revolutionary role of the historic war”. ^[25] It is no accident that wars have repeatedly resulted in revolutions (e.g. China’s Opium Wars and the Taiping Revolution in the 1839-64, World War I in 1917/18 in Russia and Central Europe; China after World War II) as well as the other way round – revolutions resulting in wars (France 1792, Central Europe in 1848/49, Russia 1918, Vietnam and Korea in the early 1950s).

 

Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution integrates the interrelation of war and revolution. It is based on the notion that there exists no Chinese Wall between the domestic and the foreign tasks of the liberation struggle but that they are rather an integrated part of the totality of the revolutionary program.

 

“The second aspect of the ‘permanent’ theory has to do with the socialist revolution as such. For an indefinitely long time and in constant internal struggle, all social relations undergo transformation. (…). Outbreaks of civil war and foreign wars alternate with periods of ‘peaceful’ reform. (…) Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such.” [26]

 

Attacking, weakening and overthrowing the enemy at home can help to defeat the enemy abroad. And attacking, weakening and defeating the enemy abroad can help to overthrow the enemy at home. This is also, we note in passing, the ultimate logic behind the Bolshevik’s famous strategy of „the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war“ which can be also applied to reactionary wars of semi-colonial states.

 

Hence, Marxists can advocate the slogan of a “revolutionary people's war” in case of a war of liberation waged by their semi-colonial country. As part of such an agitation, socialists will call for the independent mobilization and organisation of the popular masses, they can put demands on the bourgeois government to impose revolutionary methods (e.g. expropriation of the enemy’s property, arming of the people, etc.) to advance the war efforts, etc. By such tactics, they can aid the masses in raising their political consciousness and preparing them for an uprising to take power in their own hands.

 

 

 

War tactics today

 

 

 

Finally, we shall concretise our approach to several conflicts between semi-colonial countries. As we will see, in a number of cases, these have been interrelated with national or democratic liberation wars. The three wars between India and Pakistan were reactionary wars as both ruling classes attempted to expand their state territories. However, while Marxists advocated in these conflicts a defeatist position on both sides, they defended the right of national self-determination of the Kashmiri people and supported the liberation war of the Bangladeshi people in 1971 against the Pakistani army.

 

The Iran-Iraq War which lasted from 1980 to 1988 also had a combined character in the first phase. When Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime attacked Iran in September 1980 its goal was not only to expands its control over territory and oil reserves but also to liquidate the revolutionary process which had opened up in Iran in February 1979. Later, when the Khomeini regime consolidated its power and smashed the workers and youth vanguard by summer 1981, the character of the war changed. True, both states were capitalist semi-colonies. However, because of the revolutionary process in Iran, in the first phase until summer 1981, the war was reactionary only on the side of Iraq but a legitimate defensive war on the side of Iran. However, this was no longer the case when the revolutionary process in Iran had ended. From that moment on, the war took a reactionary character on both sides. Hence, revolutionaries defended Iran in the first period but changed their tactic towards defeatism on both sides by summer 1981. [27]

 

The invasion of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen which started in 2015 has been formally a conflict between semi-colonial countries (albeit the first are much wealthier than the latter). However, this conflict has been basically a war of the absolutist Gulf monarchies against the revolutionary process in Yemen which started in 2011 and resulted in a popular uprising led by the Houthis which brought down the government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi in September 2014. Fearing the expansion of the revolutionary process, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the UAE decided to invade the country. In this war, the RCIT stood for the military defence of Yemen, led by the Houthis, against the invaders. [28]

 

Likewise, we sided with Qatar when Saudi Arabia and the UAE imposed a blockade in 2017-21 and threatened to wage war. While the class character of all states involved is similar and there was no revolutionary process going in Qatar, the Saudi Arabia-UAE aggression had a reactionary character because it was driven by the fact that Qatar had relations with various resistance movements against dictatorships which did play an important role in the Arab Revolution (e.g. in Egypt, Syria and Libya) or which fought against imperialist occupation (the Palestinian Hamas and the Taliban in Afghanistan). ^[29]

 

There have been several cases in the past years where semi-colonial states intervened in an ongoing civil war in another country in order to support one or the other camp. The character of such intervention strongly depends on the character of such civil war itself. Where the civil war in progressive on one side but reactionary on the other, the RCIT takes the side of the former, including the troops of the semi-colonial state which intervenes on their side (e.g. the Turkish troops which supported the Syrian rebels against Assad and the Libyan government against General Haftar). ^[30] On the other hand, if the civil war is reactionary on both sides, so is the role of forces of other states which support one or the other camp (e.g. the current civil war in Sudan where Egypt and Iran support the army of General al-Burhan, and the UAE supports the RSF, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo). ^[31]

 

Other examples for reactionary wars on both sides are the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia in 2025 ^[32], the brief military conflict between Iran and Pakistan in 2024 ^[33], or the looming wars in East Africa involving Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia. ^[34]

 

The ongoing civil war in Somalia led by al-Shabaab against the foreign occupiers (led by Ethiopian troops) and their local proxies is an example of a national liberation war. ^[35] Likewise, the resistance of the Afghan Taliban against the aggression of Pakistan in October 2025 was a legitimate defence as the attack by Islamabad was just an extension of its reactionary wars against national minorities in Pakistan, driven by Kabul’s support for the Pashtun-based Pakistan Taliban. ^[36]

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

 

Let us finally summarise the main theses of our study.

 

1.           Wars are becoming a feature of increasing importance in the current historic period. This is not only true for tensions between Great Powers and imperialist attacks on semi-colonial countries but also for wars between semi-colonial countries in the Global South.

 

2.           A semi-colonial country is a capitalist state whose economy and state apparatus have a position in the world order where they first and foremost are dominated by other states and nations. As a result, they create extra-profits and give other economic, political and/or military advantages to the imperialist monopolies and states through their relationship based on super-exploitation and oppression. While the U.S., China, Russia, most countries in Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia are imperialist states, the large majority of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America are semi-colonies.

 

3.           Given the subordinated position of semi-colonial countries in the imperialist world order, the ruling class in such states has a peculiar nature. The domestic bourgeoisie rules these states only to a certain degree as such countries are dominated by imperialist monopoly capital and their Great Powers. As Trotsky said, the bourgeoisie of semi-colonial countries is “a semi-ruling, semi-oppressed class.“

 

4.           In order to understand the character of a military conflict one must analyse which class is waging the war and what are its goals. When it comes to conflicts involving semi-colonial countries, one has to look what is its place within the chain of the imperialist world order. To which degree does this state play a role in enforcing the imperialist world order, oppressing other nationalities; to which degree is it an obstacle for the interests of this or that Great Power. For these reasons, conflicts between semi-colonial states can be conflated both with conflicts with this or that imperialist power; and, at the same time, it can be intermixed with liberation struggles of national minorities, democratic movements, etc.

 

5.           While conflicts between imperialist powers are always reactionary on both sides, this is not necessarily the case in conflicts between semi-colonial countries. The reason is the contradictory position of the semi-colonial bourgeoisie as it is under massive pressure from above (the imperialist monopolies and powers) as well as from below (the popular masses).

 

6.           The ruling class of semi-colonial countries can therefore wage reactionary as well as progressive wars. The latter is the case when it is in conflict with an imperialist power. However, given the fact that conflicts between semi-colonial countries are often intertwined with the interests of imperialist powers or with democratic and national liberation struggles, it is also possible that a semi-colonial country wages a progressive war against another semi-colony. Naturally, the specific character of a given conflict requires a concrete analysis of all primary and secondary factors.

 

7.           In conflicts between semi-colonies which are reactionary on both sides, the RCIT takes a revolutionary defeatist position on both sides, i.e. we oppose the war of both states (“The main enemy is at home”) and advocate a policy which aims at transforming this reactionary war into a civil war of the workers and oppressed against their own ruling class (“Turn the guns around”).

 

8.           However, in conflicts where one semi-colonial country pursues a war which has objectively a progressive character by weakening the imperialist order, aiding the liberation struggle of other peoples, etc., Marxists take a revolutionary defensist position on the side of this country, i.e. they work for its military victory and the defeat of the reactionary camp by any means necessary.

 

9.           Examples for conflicts between semi-colonies which are reactionary on both sides are the wars between Indian and Pakistan, the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia in 2025, the brief military conflict between Iran and Pakistan in 2024, or the looming wars in East Africa. Examples for conflicts between semi-colonies in which one camp pursues an objectively progressive struggle are Yemen’s resistance against the Saudi-UAE invasion since 2015 or Afghanistan’s defence against Pakistan’s aggression.