First Issued: January 15, 1978.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Patrick Muldowney, Anita Hood and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
This issue contains:
EDITORIAL
1. OPINIONS ON SOME INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS – A statement from the Red Eureka Movement, (Final Draft from the Executive subcommittee appointed to prepare this).
2. DRAFT STATEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS by Martin and David
3. COMMENTS on the above by Ron
4. THREE WORLDS AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT by George
5. A Questionaire, which should be returned immediately.
* * *
The Executive appointed a subcommittee to draft a reply to the two page attack in Vanguard of December 1, 1977.
Among the other lies in Vanguard was an assertion that we support a “one world, one class, theory and oppose “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds.”
It had been previously agreed that we would conclude discussion on this question, and issue a statement, after our next conference. However, it appears necessary to issue a statement that can be referred to in the reply to Vanguard, or our continuing silence will give credence to their lies.
Accordingly the subcommittee was directed to prepare a draft to be approved by the Executive at its next meeting, without waiting for a full conference session.
This a final draft, and subject to Executive approval and minor amendments,it is proposed to issue the statement as is. Comments, minor wording changes, amendments or alternative drafts are called for but they must reach the Executive by February 1, 1978.
Since we were committed to the issues being decided by a conference, all members are asked to give their opinion on the propositions in the questionnaire.
* * *
In the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, our basic program is the complete overthrow of all exploiting classes, the establishment of working class rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat) in place of capitalist class rule (the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and the triumph of socialism over capitalism.
Our ultimate aim is the classless society of world communism.
As proletarian internationalists we firmly unite with the genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Parties and organizations, with the proletariat, the oppressed people and nations of the whole world, and fight together with them to overthrow the two superpowers – the Soviet Union and the United States, to overthrow all imperialism, revisionism and reaction and to abolish the system of exploitation of one person by another over the globe, so that all humanity will be emancipated.
The Australian revolution forms part of the world proletarian socialist revolution.
...the socialist revolution will not be solely or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie – no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism... (Lenin, “Address to the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East”, November 22, 1919, Collected Works, Vol 30, p159, Moscow, 1965)
Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution – this has become an irresistible historical trend.
Australia’s independence struggle is part of that irresistible trend. So is the Australian people’s revolution, led by the working class.
The whole world has long been divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an increasingly insignificant number of oppressor nations which command colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. We emphasise this distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations.
The whole world has long been divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an increasingly insignificant number of oppressor nations which command colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. We emphasise this distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations.
Since the second world war and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, imperialism has developed so that at present the Soviet Union and the United States, the two superpowers constituting the First World, are the biggest international exploiters and oppressors and the sources of a new world war. While the developed capitalist countries of the Second World, including Australia, oppress and exploit Third World countries, they themselves are at the same time subjected to superpower oppression, exploitation, control or threat. Australia oppresses and exploits Niugini, Fiji and other Third World countries as well as the black people at home. It has air force bases in Malaya. Yet Australia is also subjected to U.S. oppression, exploitation and control, including economic domination and military bases, and is increasingly subject to Soviet economic penetration and military threat.
The numerous countries of the Third World are the most heavily oppressed and exploited by colonialism and imperialism. The peoples and countries of the Third World are the main force in the fight against imperialism and particularly against the superpowers. This main force includes socialist as well as capitalist and semi-feudal countries. The working class is the leading force and the genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Parties are its vanguard. The people and the people alone are the motive force in the making of world history.
Of the two superpowers, the Soviet Union is the latecomer to the imperialist feast. It finds the world already carved up by its rivals, especially the United States, and has to prepare for war to re-divide the world in accord with its new and increasing strength.
The Soviet Union is the more aggressive, expansionist, militarist and fascist of the two superpowers and is therefore the main danger and the principal source of a new world war. Its cloak of fake “socialism” makes it especially dangerous.
The whole world has long been divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an increasingly insignificant number of oppressor nations which command colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. We emphasise this distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations.
The Soviet Union occupies a position remarkably similar to that of Nazi Germany before the second world war. It is fundamentally much weaker, than its opponents and can be defeated if all stand firm against appeasement. It is a paper tiger and it’s aggression stems from economic weakness, not strength. Communists were in the forefront of the struggle against appeasement in the 1930s and should be in the forefront of that struggle today. As in the 1930s when we found strange bedfellows like Winston Churchill, so we will find strange bedfellows today. But all anti-fascist forces must unite against the new “socialist” fascism.
All the countries and peoples subjected to aggression, subversion, interference or control should form the broadest possible united front against imperialism and particularly against the two superpowers. Everyone threatened by Soviet war preparations should unite to oppose this and reject appeasement.
...The more powerful enemy can, be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and without fail, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skillfully using every, even the smallest, “rift” among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional... (Lenin, “’Left-Wing’ Communism, An Infantile Disorder’, Chapter VIII. “No Compromises?” pp66-68. FLP Peking 1965)
The “rift” and antagonism between the Soviet Union and the United States, as well as the possibility of allies in the Second and Third Worlds, must certainly be used in the interests of revolution.
Whether revolution prevents the outbreak of war or war gives rise to revolution, revolution is the main trend in the world today. The world is in great turmoil, which throws the enemies into confusion and arouses the people. The situation is excellent.
The concept of “three worlds” and the international united front is based on a proper estimate of the changes in the alignment of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces in the world since the defeat of U.S. imperialism in Indo-China and the rise of Soviet imperialism.
It means rallying millions of people and all the Governments that are potentially friendly to strike at the main enemy. It avoids wasting ammunition on lesser enemies and allies.
The forces of revolution cannot be absolutely pure and the road cannot be absolutely straight.
Mao Tsetung’s revolutionary diplomatic line has been a model of united front tactics.
Opposition and resistance to the concept of “three worlds” and the international united front is a “Left-Wing” Communist or “closed-door” error.
In the international Communist movement revisionists have sought to exploit these errors to win over the Marxist-Leninist Parties and organizations into accepting a counter-revolutionary line and to promote the idea that flunkeyism is the height of revolutionary integrity. Revisionists pretend that “Left-Wing” errors are Trotskyist or “soft on the Soviet Union”. They use these errors to try to split the movement, instead of patiently correcting them as Lenin and Mao Tsetung did.
The principal contradiction in the Communist movement is that between Marxism and revisionism, between revolution and counter-revolution. Some people who are genuinely engaged in revolution are making “Left-Wing” Communist and “closed door” mistakes. Some people who clearly support counter-revolution are loudly beating their breasts in support of the concept of “three worlds” and the international united front. It does not make them Marxists. Eagles sometimes fly lower than hens, but hens can never fly as high as eagles!
In a situation of alliance with the bourgeoisie, the main danger is from the right, the danger that necessary struggles will be forgotten.
Yugoslavia is not a socialist country and Tito is not a “Comrade”. Tendencies to appeasement in the West must not be used as an excuse for capitulation – either to the Western bourgeoisie, or, under the pretence of a new “Nazi-Soviet pact”, to the Soviet Union. At present the main tendency is against appeasement.
Among the forces opposed to the newest revisionism, many are influenced by “Left-Wing” Communist and “closed-door” ideas. This is hardly surprising. The same was true in the early days of the Comintern after the break with Kautskyism. It did not make Kautsky correct.
The new Kautskyites are no more capable of refuting today’s “Left-Wing” Communism than Kautsky was capable of refuting that in his day.
There were many instances in the past where one tendency covered another and when a tide came, the majority went along with it, while only a few withstood it. Today, in both international and domestic struggles, tendencies may still occur similar to those of the past, namely, when there was an alliance with the bourgeoisie, necessary struggles were forgotten and when there was a split with the bourgeoisie, the possibility of an alliance under given conditions was forgotten. It is required of us to do our best to discern and rectify such tendencies in time. And when a wrong tendency surges towards us like a rising tide, we must not fear isolation and must dare to go against the tide and brave it through. Chairman Mao states, “Going against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle.” In daring to go against the tide and adhere to the correct line in the ten struggles between the two lines within the Party, chairman Mao is our example and teacher. Every one of our comrades should learn well from Chairman Mao and hold to this principle. (Chou En-lai, “Report to the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China”, August 1973)
In Australia the most absurd ideas have been put forward in alleged “defence” of the concept of three worlds. It is said that Soviet imperialism is the stronger superpower and that it is capable of peacefully taking over the U.S. role as the dominant imperialism here (in the same way that the U.S. took over from Britain after the last world war, but without a new world war).
The “traitor class” in Australia is supposed to be fulfilling its role of attaching itself to the stronger imperialism”, i.e. becoming compradores for the Soviet Union.
The former Labor Prime Minister Whitlam and the present Country Party Deputy PM Anthony are supposed to be “puppets of Soviet social-imperialism” and the Australian state apparatus “functions for the giant U.S. multi-nationals and increasingly is coming under the influence of Soviet social-imperialism.”
The Prime Minister Fraser and other pro-U.S. diehards are supposed to have “a certain progressive role to play both externally and internally” (our emphasis).
The Australian revolution is supposed to be an “independence revolution” which is neither a democratic revolution (old or new), nor a socialist revolution, but a new kind of revolution, previously unheard of. (And not heard much of recently, either).
Superpower contention is presented as the explanation for everything from teacher unemployment to the Newport power station.
All this is supposed to be deduced from the concept of “three worlds”. If that were so then the “three worlds” would have much to answer for. In fact it is a complete rejection of the idea that the ruling class in Second World countries can join the united front against one or both superpowers, in this case Soviet imperialism. It suggests rather that they are its natural allies, makes a complete caricature of opposition to Soviet imperialism and drives many progressive people into the enemy camp.
Unlike the Marxist-Leninist concept of three-worlds which provides orientation in the realm of international class struggle, this “enrichment” is a guide to the liquidation of class struggle in Australia.
People who previously toyed with the view that Australia was a third world country should have the decency not to now proclaim themselves great authorities on the differentiation of the three worlds.
Their crude attack on our party program has no more to do with the concept of “three worlds” than it has to do with the analysis of objective reality. It did not come from China either. It dropped from the skies, from right off the planet.
The task of Communists is to lead the revolution. This applies whether we are at war or in peacetime, whether we are in power or driven underground and whether we are in a united front with the bourgeoisie or split with it.
Our starting point and main weapon is an analysis of the classes in Australian society. No analysis of international affairs, even a correct one can substitute for that. Attempts to deduce the nature of the Australian revolution from the concept of “three worlds” are pure flunkeyism. The fact that the conclusions deduced are absurd only compounds the original error of substituting a “Society for Warmly Hailing Anything That Comes Out Of China” for a fighting Communist Party.
No flunkey has ever led a revolution and none ever will. No flunkey has ever been able to stop a revolution and none will either.
Australian revolutionaries will continue to support Mao Tsetung’s revolutionary line in Australia, in China and internationally.
WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES AND OPPRESSED NATIONS, UNITE!
* * *
1. We are living in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. This era is characterised by four principle contradictions:
(a) The contradiction between socialism and capitalism.
(b) The contradiction between labour and capital, hence between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries.
(c) The contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism.
(d) The contradiction among the imperialist powers and among the monopolies.
For the historical epoch we are living in, the fundamental contradiction is that between socialism and capitalism. In the socialist countries this contradiction expresses itself in the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road; in the capitalist/revisionist countries, it expresses itself in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
All these contradictions are sharpening. The general line of the international Marxist/Leninist movement and the international line of any Marxist-Leninist party must proceed from the recognition and analysis of these contradictions.
2. The Red Eureka movement believes that the differentiation of the worlds governments into “three worlds” is a correct interpretation of the inter-imperialist contradictions and the contradictions between the oppressed nations and imperialism in the current situation. As such, it is a valuable guide to the proletariat and oppressed peoples in the realm of international class struggle and, in particular, diplomatic struggle.
Proletarian internationalism remains the cornerstone of the international Marxist-Leninist movements general line and we totally reject the attempts of the right opportunists to substitute a distorted view of the “three worlds” as the general line.
We also totally reject the attempts of the right opportunists in Australia to impose a distorted version of the “three worlds” as the general line of the Australian revolution. No Marxist-Leninist can “deduce” the correct line for the Australian revolution merely from an analysis of international affairs and Australia’s relations with other countries. To impose such a line is to liquidate class struggle in Australia; to take superpower contention as the key link instead of class struggle. The general line of the Australian revolution remains the seizure of power by armed force from the imperialist bourgeoisie and the establishment of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat in broad alliance of the petty bourgeoisie.
3. The two superpowers U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism constitute the main enemy of the international proletariat and world’s people at present. The contradiction between the superpowers is the most important and far reaching of the many inter-imperialist contradictions and represents the direct threat of a third world war. The only way this world war can be averted is through the isolation and destruction of the superpowers i.e., through revolution, as comrade Mao-Tsetung has correctly pointed out. While the struggle to defend national independence contributes to the isolation of the superpowers, the most effective contribution the proletariat of any capitalist/revisionist country can make to averting imperialist war is the seizure of state power.
If a third world war does break out, it is the task of the proletariat to turn the imperialist war into a revolutionary war aimed at the seizure and defence of state power. This cannot be achieved by the proletariat relying on one superpower to fight the other.
4. Both internationally and in Australia the main danger to the working class movement remains right opportunism – revisionism. This danger has become greatly heightened as a result of the grave setbacks to the class struggle in China since the death of comrade Mao Tsetung.
We believe that “left-wing” communist errors also exist internationally and in Australia. These errors consist largely of confusing the basic and limited differentiation of “three worlds” with revisionist distortions of it peddled by right opportunists who have betrayed Mao Tsetung’s line on this question as well as on the continuing revolution against the party bourgeoisie. This confusion has resulted in the “left-wing” communist error of negating some aspects of the international united front.
While criticising “left-wing” errors, we regard these as non-antagonistic contradictions which can and must be solved through mutual exchange and criticism and the test of revolutionary practice.
But the international and Australian right opportunist line represents an antagonistic contradiction between Marxism and revisionism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It must be relentlessly fought overthrown and repudiated because the future of the international Marxist-Leninist movement and the Australian revolution is at stake.
Martin
David
12/12/77
Ron: Please submit this to the three person subcommittee drafting the reply to Vanguard for consideration. Although you will not agree with all of it I think it accurately reflects the majority view. (Note from Martin)
* * *
1. Martin and David’s draft of 12/12/77 affirms the concept of “three worlds and criticises opposition to that concept as a “Left-Wing” communist error that negates aspects of the international united front. This is a considerable step forward from a previous position of denouncing the concept as revisionist and basically agreeing with the “Left-wing” views expounded in the Albanian editorial of July 7. It shows that unity can be one through struggle and lays the basis for a future unanimity of views.
2. Nevertheless, I believe the draft has serious weaknesses and should not be taken as a basis for drafting a public statement by Red Eureka. Basically the draft represents a continued resistance and dragging of the feet over the central issues in dispute, and a reluctance to completely abandon wrong views that have had to be partially or largely abandoned. The impression created is of a sort of eclectic intermediate position in which the existence of three worlds and the importance of an international united front is grudgingly admitted, but surrounded by hesitation and qualification in a way that suggests that it is not really very important and may be a bit dangerous. Moreover it has the doctrinaire and didactic style, relying on rather abstract assertions, that is characteristic of this kind of thinking.
3. I believe we should fight in defence of Mao Tsetung’s theory of the united front and his revolutionary line in foreign affairs just as vigorously as we do in defence of his basic line for continuing the revolution in China and in opposition to the revisionist line in Australia. Our public statement in support of that line should be clear-cut, unambiguous and militant. It should not slur over any of the issues. A draft for such a statement will be circulated shortly some specific criticisms of Martin and David’s draft follow.
4. Paragraph 2 states that in the socialist countries the fundamental contradiction between socialism and capitalism expresses itself in the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road. This tells us precisely nothing and is bombastic twaddle. It goes on to state in the capitalist/revisionist countries this fundamental contradiction expresses itself in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Surely a central part of Mao Tsetung’s development of Marxism-Leninism was his theory that in socialist countries too the struggle is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie!
The point is not that this slip should be corrected, but that it arises from the doctrinaire style of including paragraphs that have no real purpose except to sound good.
5. Paragraph 3. tells us we must proceed from a recognition and analysis of our 4 “principle”(!) contradictions. It would be better to proceed not from abstract definitions but from concrete facts and actually demonstrate such an analysis – as the concept of three worlds does.
6. Paragraph 4 refers to “differentiation of the world’s governments.” Why “governments”? And why “in particular, diplomatic struggle”? The implication is that the mighty struggle of the third world against imperialism and especially the superpowers doesn’t have all that much to do with us, although it might be of relevance to the diplomacy of socialist countries.
7. Paragraph 5 refers to “the Right opportunists” as distinct from paragraph 6’s “Right opportunists in Australia.” Presumably the Chinese revisionists are being accused of substituting a distorted view of the “three worlds” as the general line. There may be something in this, as regards the way they are using “three worlds” as a symbol for the imposition of their direct control over the international movement. But I think the recent long Chinese editorial on the subject was mainly correct and we should not say anything that implies disagreement with it overall. It certainly stands out in complete contrast to the polemic against the “gang of four” as regards theoretical level.
The resemblances in the choice of arguments used and even particular quotations from the classics between the Chinese editorial and the article on “three worlds” signed Alan Ward in Discussion Bulletin No.1 may appear somewhat embarrassing. Since Alan Ward’s was written a good deal earlier it is clearly not a case of flunkeyism”! The explanation lies in the fact that these issues were thrashed out in China several years ago at the time these policies were adopted, and the arguments used and classical material referred to then, would be the same as those that would be found by any Marxist-Leninist thinking about the issue in Australia, as was done, at the time it became an issue, several years ago. It is not hard for revisionists to repeat correct arguments that have long been established. The surprising thing is that Marxist-Leninists should now try to refute them, when they were accepted as long as Mao Tsetung was alive. Access to a common fund of source material is confirmed by the Albanian editorial which quotes (ineffectively) different passages from several of the same works quoted in the Chinese editorial and our Discussion Bulletin. Presumably the Albanians had a similar reading list (perhaps arising from the bilateral discussions which had been going on for many years) and referred to works in that list because they were known to be relevant.
There is really nothing surprising about the Chinese party bourgeoisie favouring a united front with sections of the imperialist bourgeoisie elsewhere, and being able to repeat correct arguments for that united front, just as the Mensheviks were able to repeat correct Marxist arguments for participating in bourgeois parliaments in Russia. It does not make that united front wrong, nor the Chinese bourgeoisie’s participation in it wrong. (anymore than Churchill’s support for the united front against Hitler was wrong).
...the whole history of the 15 years of struggle between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in Russia (1903-17) proves, as the three Russian revolutions also prove that, in general, the Mensheviks were absolutely wrong and that they were, in fact, agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement. This fact is incontrivertible But this incontrivertible fact does not eliminate the other fact that in individual cases the Mensheviks were right and the Bolsheviks were wrong, as, for example, on the question of boycotting the Stolypin Duma in 1907. (Lenin, “Notes of a Publicist”, 1922, Collected Works Vol.33, pg.208, Moscow, 1966)
In the same work (same page) Lenin speaks of his role at the third Congress of the Communist Internationale in a way which the present writer finds comforting:
At that Congress I was on the extreme right flank. I am convinced that it was the only correct stand to take, for a very large (and influential) group of delegates, headed by many German, Hungarian and Italian comrades, occupied and inordinately “Left” and incorrectly Left position, and far too often, instead of soberly weighing up the situation that was not very favourable for immediate and direct revolutionary action, they vigourously indulged in the waving of little red flags.
8. Paragraph 6 describes a “general line of the Australian revolution” which sounds more like a basic program. It may be correct, but it differs substantially from the general line of new democracy (a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat) set out in the party program which readers of Rebel No. 2 were urged to “unite on the basis of.” We have already decided not to adopt any new formulation of the party program in Australia (or general line) without clarifying the whole question of the nature of the Australian revolution and the class analysis of Australian society.
9. Paragraph 7. (pgs. 1-2) says the two superpowers constitute the main enemy. It slurs over the issue of whether they are “to the same extent” as the Albanians say, or whether the Soviet Union is the more dangerous and the principle source of a new world war. Ample facts have been cited to prove the latter and we should clearly state it (while equally clearly opposing Vanguard’s attempts to prove the Soviet Union is stronger, is peacefully taking over, and is the explanation for everything from teacher unemployment to the Newport power station).
10. Paragraph 7. also states that the most effective contribution the proletariat of any capitalist/revisionist country can make to averting imperialist war is the seizure of sate power. No doubt that is the best thing to do under all circumstances, imperialist war or not and anybody who advises that the proletariat should seize state power will unfailingly be correct, whatever the particular issue. Unfortunately there is no immediate practical possibility of the proletariat seizing power and so the advice is not really helpful (although of course still “correct”). It is directly counterposed to the struggle to defend national independence which only “contributes” but is not “the most effective contribution”.
I think that actually fighting to defend national independence against the superpowers is a far more effective contribution both to isolating the superpowers and winning the revolution (as in Mao Tsetung’s war against Japanese imperialism) than abstract talk about seizing power.
11. Paragraph 8. how to turn an imperialist into a revolutionary war is the question. In one type of imperialist war, the first imperialist world war, the Bolshevik revolution gave the answer. In another type, the second imperialist world war, the united front against Japan gave the answer. Both ended up turning the war “into a revolutionary war aimed at the seizure and defence of state power.” Of course we cannot “rely” on one superpower to fight the other, but the clear implication is that we can never be allied with one against the other either. In that case Mao was wrong to unite with Chiang Kai-Shek and the Anglo American imperialist against Japan (even before the Soviet Union was attacked),and Stalin was wrong to form the world wide anti-fascist united front with western imperialist countries. It seems more likely that Martin and David are wrong. The question is not abstract. Soviet forces are massing against western Europe right now in just the same way that Hitler did. We either support appeasement or oppose it. The Russians will love communists talking abstractly about “revolutionary war” and not “relying” on one against the other, instead of actively preparing to wage revolutionary war with a united front as Mao Tsetung did. The Japanese loved similar talk from the “closed-doorists” and Trotskyites in the 1930’s.
12. Paragraph 10. what is a “basic and limited differentiation”? The “Left-wing” communist errors do not “consist largely of confusing the basic and limited differentiation of “three worlds” with revisionist distortions of it...” The error “consists” largely of negating the international united front and this is not the “result” of confusion with views peddled by the revisionists, but a trend that existed long before the coup.
13. Last paragraph (12). Yes the right opportunist line “must be relentlessly fought, overthrown and repudiated because the future of the international Marxist-Leninist movement and the Australian revolution is at stake.” Precisely because it is so important to defeat Right revisionism, we cannot afford to compromise with “Left-wing” errors. To do so means to let the Right off the hook and fail to overthrow it. As Lenin said often “no-one can discredit revolutionary social-democracy”, (read Communism) as long as it does not discredit itself.” (See “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism” Collected Works Vol.23 pp 28-9 Moscow 1964 – a work directly relevant to the current controversy).
14. In this connection it is worth studying Chou En-lai’s political report to the historic Tenth National Congress of the CCP;
Chairman Mao has consistently taught us; it is imperative to note that one tendency covers another. The opposition to Chen Tu-hsiu’s Right opportunism which advocated “all alliance no struggle” covered Wang Ming’s quote “Left opportunism” which advocated all struggle no alliance.” The rectification of Wang Ming’s “Left” deviation covered Wang Ming’s Right deviation. The struggle against Liu Shao-chi’s revisionism covered Lin Piao’s revisionism. There were many instances in the past where one tendency covered another and when a tide came, the majority went along with it, while only a few withstood it. Today in both international and domestic struggles tendencies may still occur similar to those of the past, namely, when there was an alliance with the bourgeoisie necessary struggles were forgotten and when there was a split with the bourgeoisie, the possibility of an alliance under given conditions was forgotten. It is required of us to do our best to discern and rectify such tendencies in time. And when wrong tendencies surges towards us like a rising tide we must not fear isolation and must dare to go against the tide and brave it through. Chairman Mao states, going against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle. In daring to go against the tide and adhere to the correct line in the ten struggles between the two lines within the party, Chairman Mao is our example and teacher. Every one of our comrades should learn well from Chairman Mao and hold to this principle”. (adopted unanimously August 28 1973)
15. Contrast the above with Martin’s note “Although you will not agree with all of it I think it accurately reflects the majority view” –an explicit call to swim with the tide. If Martin and David are right then it doesn’t matter a damn whether I agree with them or not, and neither does it matter whether they accurately reflect a majority view or not. Likewise if they are wrong. If they do accurately reflect the majority view on the other hand, then whether they are right or wrong, their view will be adopted by majority vote. In that case of course there is no need for the assertion that it is a majority view and nothing to worry about. In my opinion the assertion is made precisely because the author id afraid his view will not be adopted and wishes to exert pressure for it. The fact Martin and David have already been forced, by truth and by the majority, to abandon their previous views and it is to their credit that they did so) why shouldn’t they go and think it all over, reading the references given to them, instead of insisting that their new views “accurately reflect the majority”?
* * *
Lenin in his thesis for the Second Congress of the Communist International wrote very extensively on the problems that confronted the international communist movement around the early 1920’s. I thought that it would be very worthwhile to reprint sections of it and to give some comments which are pertinent to the state of flux that the international communist movement is in today. Also, particular emphasis will be given to revisionist distortions to the 3 Worlds Theory within Australia.
ONE: “The present stage in the development of the international communist movement is marked by the fact that the finest representatives of the revolutionary proletariat in all capitalist countries have fully grasped the fundamental principles of the Communist International, vis, dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power, and have ranged themselves with unbounded enthusiasm on the side of the Communist International. An even bigger and more important step forward is the definite sympathy with these fundamental principles that has everywhere taken shape among the broadest masses....”(pg 195)
Although Lenin summarised well the state of the international communist movement in his period of time, many changes have come about since then. The revisionist takeover in the Soviet Union and particularly since the early I960’s the international communist movement has been literally dismantled. Of course the revisionists have their own so called Communist International but it is well known that it is a stage managed farce, bankrupt and decadent, serving the interests of Soviet social-imperialism. The genuine Communist Parties and organisations that adhere to and grasp the fundamental principles of the International’ Communist Movement (I.C.M.) as Lenin had stated very clearly are not organised internationally as in the time of Marx, Lenin or Stalin. In fact one can say that they are very disorganised. This disorganisation is also very apparent internally in the various Communist parties. Australia is such an example. Apart from the internal problems that the Communist Parties must overcome, internationally, problems also exist. Particular comrades and fraternal Communist Parties have emphasised their support for the Theory of Three Worlds espoused by China. They claim that it gives Communists a concrete road to take in waging the international class struggle. Many comrades are not convinced of this and it is relevant to ask how true and correct is this 3 Worlds Theory in terms of an overall Communist International when one does not exist? The Peoples Republic of China has supposedly used the 3 World’s theory as its official principled policy for years in the conduct of its international affairs. That does not mean that all fraternal parties have to adhere to this so called correct theory when no authoritative explanation of it had been given until after the death of Chairman Mao. Of course this can due to the sinister influence of the gang of four!
All of a sudden, after Mao’s death, the Chinese are making great propaganda about the 3 Worlds theory and how it is supposed to guide the International struggle.
Instead of conducting some sort of International Communist Congress the Chinese have invited individual Communist leaders separately to brief them on this revelationary theory of the 3 Worlds. We now have a situation where fraternal parties oppose or support the 3 Worlds theory and the very real danger of an international split grows.
Lenin very clearly explained what the I.C.M. is all about and particularly emphasised its fundamental principles, namely the dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power.
TWO: “The victory of socialism...over capitalism requires that the proletariat, as the only revolutionary class shall accomplish the following tasks. First – overthrow the exploiters, and first and foremost the bourgeois, as their principle economic and political representative,...” (pg 196) Second – win over and bring under the leadership of the communist Party, the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, not only the entire proletariat, or its vast majority, but all who labour and are exploited by capital, ......”(pg 196)
THIRD – “Neutralise or render harmless, the inevitable vacillation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeoisie democracy and Soviet power, to be seen in the class of proprietors in agriculture, industry and commerce...(pg 197)
The first and second tasks are independent ones, each requiring its own special methods of action with regard to the exploiters and to the exploited respectively. The third task follows from the first two.....(pg 197)
In speaking at the Second Congress of the Comintern Lenin was outlining its basic principled tasks. Approximately fifty years after the Second Congress the basic Communist principles do not change even though we live in a more rabid imperialist world. Only the revisionists have changed these principles. Within the disorganised state of the I.C.M. today emerges this 3 Worlds theory. This theory does not particularly emphasise or even mentions the basic principles of international communism. If anything the theory of the three worlds is part of China’s own explanation of its actions in diplomatic circles. That categorically means that it has got nothing directly to do with international communism. If the Peoples Republic of China attempts, as it is doing now, to make this theory a guiding principle for other fraternal Communist Parties, then it is in my opinion a serious and unprincipled error.
Certain comrades have come out and supported the 3 Worlds theory and at the same time stated that particular revisionist capitulators inside the Australian Communist Party(M-L) have applied it to Australia internally. They are correct. But that does not mean that the theory of the 3 Worlds is a correct Marxist-Leninist critique of communist tasks internationally. If we study the present Chinese leadership analysis of this theory, as stated before, no basic communist principles are emphasised. Therefore, we have to realise that it is very open for the new revisionists to apply it to Australia. Australia is not the only country where the revisionists have applied it internally. The 3 Worlds theory denies class struggle and ignores the dictatorship of the proletariat. The new revisionists have used it to deny the growth of the Communist movement both externally and internally. Instead of having Communist principles to fight for, the revisionists preach, capitulation and unity with sections of the bourgeoisie on an unprincipled basis. No wonder fraternal parties overseas are opposing this theory. Our own Party, which has brilliantly paid lip service to the Australian proletariat, now preaches reformism, to defend bourgeoisie democracy. Of course this is done under the guise of fighting for an ”independent Australia”. The revisionists that preach this claim that they get their inspiration from the theory of the 3 Worlds.
All this taken into account, the international situation is very favourable for the waging of the class struggle, but it cannot be done successfully when the Communist Parties are not organised, when differences have not been thrashed out.
On the diplomatic level, such as in the U.N. and its relations with third world countries, the Peoples Republic of China has had a great deal of success. No one cannot reasonably attack China’s actions. But diplomacy with all sorts of countries is one thing and the international communist movement is another. We have to realise that Communist parties that, as yet, haven’t got state power are going to find it very irrelevant to use the three worlds theory both internally and externally unless as our very “own” Communist Party has done, use it for an excuse to capitulate to certain sections of the bourgeoisie. One of the obvious flaws that has existed for years has been the lack of information on struggles of other parties overseas.
* * *
PSEUDONYM
BRANCH
CONFERENCE DELEGATE YES/NO
Please circle your answers and return to the Executive as soon as possible and no later than February 11, 1978
1. Do you basically agree with the subcommittee’s draft “Opinions on Some International Questions? YES/NO
2. Do you basically agree with Martin and David’s draft? YES/NO
3. Do you basically agree with Ron’s comments? YES/NO
4. Do you basically agree, with George’s article YES/NO
5. Do you approve the Executive finalizing a statement (likely to be based on the subcommittees draft) without referring it to a full conference session? YES/NO
6. Will you be submitting any further comments etc? YES/NO (If YES please attach)
7. (Executive members and other conference delegates only).
DO you INSIST on a full conference session being held even if a majority say YES to question 5? YES/NO/NOT A DELEGATE
(NOTE: 1. Otherwise it is proposed that the Executive will adopt a majority position and close the discussion, at its next meeting after February 1.
2. Non-delegates may insist on a branch meeting being held to demand a full conference session, in which case the branch secretary must convene the meeting before February 1.
All members, including Interstate, are asked to make sure they answer all questions, and especially question 5.
All Executive members and conference delegates MUST do so.
Branch secretaries please ensure that any branch members with strong views about this issue, or a strong desire to be consulted in general, receive this bulletin and questionnaire as early as possible (i.e. immediately). By the time they get it there will probably be only a week to reply. Requests for an extension of time will also be considered by the Executive, but only if the request is received in time. Answering next question YES is not a request.
8. Should deadline be extended beyond February 1 before closing discussion and taking decision? YES/NO
Return loose copy of questionnaire above.