For some time now we have attempted to engage both COReS and LPR in principled struggle on the international situation, as well as other questions. These attempts were not successful. We had wanted to struggle with these groups at a tine when our differences were beginning to emerge, when there was the possibility of uniting through principled struggle. We wanted to do this because it is the duty of all U.S. Marxist-Leninists to seek principled unity with others so as to form a genuine vanguard party of the U.S. proletariat.–
Neither LPR or COReS have related to us in the spirit of desire for principled struggle for unity. Both groups, from the time of our emerging differences, have opportunistically avoided struggle, particularly on the questions of the International situation and revisionism In China. We would like to stress that no amount of hiding from principled struggle will prevent the exposure of the utterly revisionist “theory of three worlds” and the revisionist take-over in China. Neither of these viewpoints can stand up to the correctness of Marxism-Leninism. And it is on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and only on this basis, that we ask all honest comrades to examine this struggle.
We see it as important to briefly review some history in the relationship of our groups. It is important because we would like for all honest comrades to know what paths have been traveled in getting to where we are today. We see that part of exposing the opportunist line of LPR and COReS on the international situation is in exposing the opportunism of the leadership of these groups in refusing to wage principled struggle for unity.
As for COReS, our organizations last met in Kansas City in January 1978. At this meeting the differences on the international situation and the situation in China were gone into. We were not able to resolve the differences in this meeting, but both sides made a definite commitment to engage in principled and regular struggle to attempt to resolve the differences. COReS has made absolutely no effort to do this. Since that time we have written several letters to COReS to encourage them to carry on the struggle. None of our letters were ever acknowledged. Finally we made a phone call and we were assured by a leading cadre that they would respond within two weeks. This was several months ago and we have yet to receive a response. We think that all comrades should demand of COReS an answer as to why they terminated our relationship in the manner in which they did.
During the course of that January meeting there were some significant developments. First, our position was in opposition to the “three worlds theory.” COReS supported it. However, their defense of the theory was not based on any study of Marxism-Leninism. Their line was based mainly on idealism and wishful thinking. After the struggle COReS acknowledged that they had no scientific basis to defend the three worlds theory, and that they would be able to argue the issue better after some initial study. Up to that time they had not taken up the question, although it had been a major issue in the international communist movement for over a year.
We also struggled over the question of the revisionist take-over in China. Our view was that the revisionists had seized power in China and we presented the study we had done to substantiate our line. COReS opposed our view. But again, they had done no study on the question and could not wage any principled struggle for their line. This time, however, COReS acknowledged that their line was an opportunist one, and that they had only tailed after Peking Review. We painted out that the basis of their vacillation was idealism – wishing that revisionism had not taken over the CPC leadership–and if not corrected, would lead to complete unity with the Teng-Hua revisionists.
Finally, we had struggle over COReS’ “Open Letter To The Communist Movement.” For those who are not familiar with the letter, it unprincipally attacked the comrades of WCC as Trotskyites because of their views on the CPC. The focal point of the attack was WCC’s document “Against The Revisionist Take-over in China.” After a period of struggle, COReS agreed that their stand on WCC was unprincipled and opportunist. They acknowledged that they hadn’t even studied the WCC document, and, because of their lack of study on either the international situation or the China question, it was incorrect for them to draw lines of demarcation on these issues. COReS agreed to reconsider their stand on WCC, and present another open letter to the movement explaining their new position. This was never done.
Both KCRWC and WCC sent correspondence to COReS asking for the re-establishment of principled relations with WCC. Neither letter was ever acknowledged.
Last fall it was made known to us that a forum was to be held in Denver on the international situation. We requested permission to attend. We were told that we could not attend because the forum was a “local” one. However, both LPR and the Workers’ Congress attended. Adding a “local” tag to the forum was only an opportunist maneuver to prevent us from attending, as COReS had no serious intention of engaging in struggle.
We know that there are cadre in the COReS organization who know that all of what we have said is the truth. We hope that the cadres of this organisation will demand to know why their leadership has pursued such an opportunist course, and why their leadership has displayed such a deathly fear of engaging in principled struggle with us. These issues are important because if Marxist-Leninists cannot engage in principled struggle over differences, then no genuine unity can come about, and we can not build the vanguard party that our movement so desperately needs.
As for LPR, their actions have been similar. We had agreed to hold a bilateral meeting in Kansas City in November 1977. A few days before the meeting was to go down, LPR called to postpone the meeting. No satisfactory reason was given but LPR promised to send a full explanation within a few days. That explanation never came. Since that time we’ve sent LPR several letters asking for an explanation and attempting to reschedule the meeting. These efforts were futile on our part. The main thing that we did learn through these experiences was that LPR, like COReS, had no intention of waging principled struggle over differences, and their line of uniting Marxist-Leninists was simply a sham.
Here we will present comrades with some initial views of our own history in struggling around the international situation. We know that actions on our part in the past represent serious deviations from the Marxist-Leninist method, and a more detailed self-criticism is needed. Once this is completed, we will share it with other comrades for their comments.
At our inception, we acknowledged the international leadership of the Communist Party of China, along with the Party of Labour of Albania. We felt that recognition of the leadership of these parties represented a line of demarcation. Although we upheld the leading role of these parties, we did not always examine their positions closely so that we could apply the science of Marxism-Leninism and verify the correctness of their views. Without understanding the theoretical basis of these views, we cannot be able to independently get our bearings when one or both parties change positions, or when there is a disagreement between the two. Such was the case with the “theory of the three worlds.” We united with this view mainly because it was the view of the CPC, not because we knew it to be correct on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. Our uncritical tailing of the CPC set the stage for our actions after the PLA’s Seventh Congress.
At the Albanian party’s 7th Congress, Comrade Enver Hoxha’s speech attacked the theory of the three worlds. At the same time, other comrades, such as the WCC, began to criticize the views of the Chinese party leadership after the purge of the “gang of four.” Clearly, an event of major significance was unfolding. The parties that we had recognized as leaders of the international movement were beginning on a course that would lead to eventual breaking of relations. At this time, it was the duty of all Marxist-Leninists to boldly take up this struggle and fight for the correct Marxist-Leninist line.
As for WCC, they pursued their study of the China question, and in March 1977 issued a document “Against The Revisionist Take-Over In China.” This document defends the line of the Cultural Revolution in China and criticizes the new leadership’s attacks on the continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Although the document prematurely called for a break with the CPC, it correctly characterized the new leadership as being revisionist, and urged all comrades to examine the document and take up the struggle for the correct line.
As for KCRWC, we took the road of the petty-bourgeois. We did not want to believe what was happening before our eyes, because to do so would have called for a bold and daring attitude of going against the tide. Such an attitude we did not possess. Instead, we covered for the new leadership and simply hoped that the disagreements would somehow disappear and things would return to normal. This attitude was a manifestation of petty-bourgeois Philistinism, and it had its ideological roots in idealism. This led us to vacillate on the question for some time, and also led us into such incorrect positions as agreeing with the exclusion of WCC at the COReS party building forum. Whereas we now recognize some of the basis of the deviation, we need to understand much more about how to rectify such deviations. Thorough rectification la what prevents the same deviations from reoccurring.
In some ways we are beginning to take some initial steps toward rectification. In opposing the “three worlds theory”, we accepted the leadership of the PLA and their article “The Theory And Practice Of The Revolution.” But at the same time we conducted our own investigation into the science of Marxism-Leninism, and It was through that investigation that we saw the correctness of the PLA line. However, there are some views of the PLA that we don’t have unity on. One such position is their view of Comrade Mao Tse-Tung. We have always upheld Chairman Mao as an outstanding Marxist-Leninist, and continue to do so. The PLA line has serious implications, and we will study their view and present our conclusions to the movement as soon as we are able. But we will not blindly accept the PLA line simply because we recognize them as the leading party in the world today.
The question of the characterization of the present historical era is a fundamental one in our determination of strategy and tactics for the international communist movement. The basic strategy that we follow at this time must reflect the concrete reality as presented by the present ERA–that is, which classes are on the rise, which are In decline, which class “stands at the hub of one epoch or another, determining its main content, the main direction of Its development, the main characteristics of the historical situation in that epoch, etc.”[1] It is only by taking these historical features into account that we can correctly evolve our strategy and tactics.
What, then, characterizes the present historical era? Which classes and movements determine the main content and main direction of the development of this epoch? Lenin has said:
World capitalism has at the present time, i.e., about the beginning of the twentieth century, reached the stage of Imperialism...The extremely high level of development which world capitalism in general has attained, the replacement of free competition by monopoly capitalism, the fact that the banks and the capitalist associations have prepared the machinery for the social regulation of the process of production and distribution of products, the rise in the cost of living and increased oppression of the working class by the syndicates due to the growth of capitalist monopolies, the tremendous obstacles standing in the way of the proletariat’s economic and political struggle, the horrors, misery, rain, and brutalization caused by imperialist war–all these factors transform the present stage of capitalist development into an era of proletarian socialist revolution. That era has dawned. Only a proletarian socialist revolution can lead humanity out of the impasse which Imperialism and Imperialist wars have created...Objective conditions make it the urgent task of the day to prepare the proletariat in every way for the conquest of political power in order to carry out the economic and political measures which are the sum and substance of the socialist revolution.[2](emphasis added)
Thus we see that we are in the era of imperialism and proletarian socialist revolution. The proletariat is the class whose motion and development lies as the basis of the further development of society. Its historic mission is to seize political power and establish its revolutionary dictatorship.
This historical era differs radically from the preceding one. At that time, the old-type bourgeois-democratic movement was on the order of the day, and the bourgeois classes played a progressive role. Today, we are faced with a fundamentally new situation. There are now four basic contradictions in the world. They are: the contradiction between socialism and capitalism, the contradiction between labor and capital in the capitalist countries, the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations and imperialism, and the contradictions among the imperialist powers. Using these contradictions as our basis, we see the key problem which is predominant today Internationally as being the ruthless struggle between the bourgeois-imperialist world on the one hand, and socialism, the world proletariat and its natural allies, on the other.
The basis of our strategy in this epoch must be recognition and admission of the existence of these contradictions. Any attempt to downplay or eliminate any of these contradictions will lead to opportunism in political line. The basic strategy that we employ, in the main, has been elaborated by Lenin and Stalin. This basic strategy is still valid today. This is because the historical epoch has not evolved. We are still in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, where the socialist revolution Is on the present agenda. As Stalin showed, the basic strategy employed in any historical epoch remains the same during that epoch.
Within a historical epoch, there may be several tactical periods. These tactical periods are determined by the ebb and flow of the movement. They call for different tactical class alliances that facilitate the achievement of our strategic objective. As an example, the United Front Against Fascism was one such tactical period. At that particular time, fascism seriously threatened the progress of the world-wide revolutionary movement. For the proletarian forces, certain tactical alliances with the imperialist bourgeoisie were necessary.[2a] What must be emphasized, however, is that such alliances can only be tactical, which means that the imperialist bourgeoisies represented temporary, unstable allies. The only reason such an alliance could be made was that it would help the proletarian forces achieve their basic strategic objective–the socialist revolution. The next historical epoch of our revolution is world-wide socialism. Until we reach that point, the strategy of this era, based on the four basic contradictions, remains the same. It is our tactics that change in accordance with the ebb and flow of the movement. The objective of our strategy in the present era is to overthrow Imperialism worldwide, establish and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, and build socialism. The main force is the proletariat and the socialist countries. The main reserves are the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and the semi-proletarian and small peasant masses in the capitalist countries. Indirect reserves are contradictions among the Imperialists and other reactionary classes. This is the basic strategy of the international communist movement today. As Stalin teaches:
...after the October Revolution. Objective: to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in on country, using it as a base for the defeat of Imperialism in all countries. The revolution spreads beyond the confines of one country: the epoch of world revolution has begun. The major forces of the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, the revolutionary movement of the proletariat in all countries. Main reserves: the semi-proletarian and small-peasant masses in the developed countries, the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries.[3]
The proponents of the “theory of the three worlds”, led by the revisionist leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, have negated the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the strategy for the present historical epoch. According to them, our strategy is no longer based on the fundamental character and the four major contradictions in the epoch of imperialism and socialist revolution, but instead, the strategy has been revised according to “changes” in these contradictions. It is as if we have entered into a new historical era–the era of “hegemonism.” This is how the CPC poses the problem:
Tremendous changes in the present-day International situation and the daily growth of the people’s strength in different countries and of the factors for revolution demand a new classification of the world’s political forces, so that a new global strategy can be formulated for the International proletariat and the oppressed people according to the new relationship between ourselves, our friends and our enemies.[4] (emphasis added)
As we have seen, there is no basic “new global strategy” until we have entered a new historical era–the era of world-wide socialism. And then the objective of our strategy is to insure the transformation to classless society–world communism. So what is the purpose of this “new” strategy by the CPC? And where does the revolution fit in? From reading the CPC article (“Chairman Mao’s Theory Of The Differentiation Of The Three Worlds Is A Major Contribution To Marxism-Leninism”), we can readily see that revolution has no place in this strategy. This is how they put it:
In waging the struggle on the International arena, the proletariat must unite with all those who can be united In the light of what is Imperative and feasible In different historical periods...Therefore, we can never lay down any hard and fast formula for differentiating the world’s political forces.[5]
But exactly what is “imperative and feasible” in this historical era? As we have shown, the proletarian revolution is on the present agenda. And only the proletarian revolution can take our struggle to the next basic stage. Anything else takes our movement backward. But seeing the proletarian revolution and the world-wide victory of socialism as the objective of our present strategy is precisely the “hard and fast formula” that the CPC revisionists seek to avoid. Revisionists will always regard certain principles of Marxism-Leninism as “dogmatic”, “rigid”, and outmoded under “new historical conditions.” Under these “new conditions”, according to the CPC, we can not now achieve the proletarian dictatorship. Revolution is not yet “imperative and feasible.” Thus, the only thing we can accomplish now is the united front against the hegemony of the two superpowers–and, at that, really only against Soviet hegemonism.
The CPC, in the chapter that supposedly characterizes the current historical epoch (“The Differentiation of the Three Worlds Is A Scientific Marxist Assessment of Present-Day World Realities”, p.11-18), goes to great lengths to show why the proletarian revolution is “not feasible” at this time. Their intention is to confuse the present historical era with the preceding one, when bourgeois-democratic movements of the old-type were progressive and it was correct to struggle for national determination for the capitalist states. How do they do this? Examine the following:
To the end of their days Marx and Engels made frequent reference to resolute opposition to the Russian tsarist empire’s policy of aggression as the criterion by which to differentiate Europe’s political forces and to determine to which national movement In Europe the international proletariat should give Its support...First, like Marx and Engels, we should acclaim the great national revolutionary movement that has embraced all oppressed nations and shaken the world, and should regard it as an important pre-condition and a sure guarantee for the triumph of the international proletariat. Second, we should pay constant attention to the contradictions between the capitalist countries and identify the arch enemies of the international working-class movement as Marx and Engels did, and wage an unrelenting struggle against the biggest fortresses of world reaction today, namely, Soviet social-imperialism and U.S. Imperialism.[6]
The method employed here by the CPC Is sheer opportunism. The analogy between the opposition of Europe to Russian tsarism and the present-day struggles of the peoples against the two superpowers la an entirely false one. As Lenin observed, “Marx’s method consists, first of all, in taking due account of the objective content of a historical process at a given moment, in definite and concrete conditions; this in order to realise, in the first place, the movement of which class is the mainspring of the progress possible in those concrete conditions.”[7] At the time of Europe’s opposition to Russian tsarism, imperialism did not represent the main objective content, and the national-bourgeois movements, led by the bourgeoisie against the feudal forces, were the primary progressive movements. At that time, it was correct to support the efforts of rising capital against the outmoded feudal and absolutist system. But Russian tsarism of the old period cannot be likened to the present-day superpowers in the imperialist era. No longer are there progressive movements led by the European bourgeoisie. However, the CPC would like to replace the imperialist epoch with that of progressive bourgeois-democratic movements. Lenin long ago warned against this type of opportunism:
Potresov has failed to notice that, to Marx In 1859 (as well as in a number of later cases),’the question_of the success of which side is note desirable’ meant asking ’the success of which bourgeoisie is more desirable.’ Potresov has failed to notice that Marx was working on the problem at a time when there existed indubitably progressive bourgeois movements, which moreover did not merely exist, but were in the forefront of the historical process in the leading states of Europe. Today, it would be ridiculous even to imagine a progressive bourgeoisie, a progressive bourgeois movement, in, for instance, such key members of the ’Concert’ of Europe, as Britain and Germany. The old bourgeois ’democracy’ of these two key states has turned reactionary. Potresov has ’forgotten’ this, and has substituted the standpoint of the old (bourgeois) so-called democracy for that of present-day (non-bourgeois) democracy. This shift to the standpoint of another class, and moreover of an old and outmoded class, is sheer opportunism. There cannot be the least doubt that a shift like this cannot be justified by an analysis of the objective content of the historical process in the old and the new epochs.[8]
Not only do the CPC revisionists confuse two historical epochs, they also opportunistically neglect different particular conditions that occur even within the same historical epoch. An example of this is their comparison of the Anglo-Soviet-American and Italo-German blocs during World War II, with the U.S. and U.S.S.R. today. This is a thoroughly opportunist comparison primarily because the Soviet Union, at the time, represented the bastion of the world socialist revolution. Today, China does not represent such a force, and in fact plays a reactionary role world-wide with its attempts to liquidate the revolutionary struggles. Furthermore, China is no longer on the course of socialist construction and can not be considered anymore a genuine socialist country.
Also, the CPC uses the World War II situation to justify its call for unity of the entire world against the Soviet Union. This unity would even include the other superpower–the United States. Teng Hsiao-Ping said:
The global war plan cooked up by the Soviet Union muse be destroyed. I hope that this effort will be made by the whole world – the third world, the second world, and even including the first world, the United States.[9]
What we have tried to show here is the critical importance of always understanding the present historical epoch, and the corresponding strategy and tactics. By relying on the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the Imperialist historical epoch, we can see through all the distortions of the present revisionist leadership of the CPC. Their analysis is social-chauvinism, liquidates proletarian revolution, and has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism.
In analysing the strategy as put forward by the “theory of the three worlds”, we need to examine closely how this theory applies in each of the three “worlds”. We will begin by examining the “first world”, the Soviet Union and the United States, and see how revisionism is manifested in the analysis put forward by the CPC. There are several instances of this revisionism. (See the chapter, “The Two Hegemonist Powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, Are the Common Enemies of the Peoples of the World; the Soviet Union is the Most Dangerous Source of World War”, (PR 45, p. 19-24). The CPC begins by declaring:
The emergence of the two superpowers a new phenomenon in the history of the development of Imperialism...Instances of a couple of great powers trying to gain world supremacy can be cited in the history of Imperialism, but they are not in the same league with the Soviet Union and the United States today.[11]
This declaration is in the main incorrect. The emergence of the two superpowers is not a “new phenomenon” in the development of Imperialism. Because of the uneven development of imperialism, we will always see the development of a few great powers, which economically and militarily hold sway over the rest of the world. The particular phenomenon of the present-day superpowers may be different in a quantitative sense, but there is no fundamental difference that would call for any change in our communist strategy for world revolution. What we see is basically two Imperialist giants, each seeking a redivision of the world that is most favorable for it to carry out its Imperialist plunder. They are locked in an inter-imperialist rivalry, along with their respective blocs, and that imperialist rivalry will lead to a new world war. Lenin, in discussing the competing German and Anglo-French blocs of the World War 1 period said:
It is the one and only guide-post to a proper solution of the problem of war! It leads you to the conclusion that the present war, too, is the outcome of the policies of the classes who have come to grips in it, of the two supreme giants, who, long before the war, had caught the whole world, all countries, in the net of financial exploitation and economically divided the globe up among themselves. They were bound to clash, because a redivision of this supremacy, from the point of view of capitalism, had become inevitable.[12]
Setting up the two superpowers as being something “new” and “peculiar” sets the stage for the CPC to call for a united front against hegemonism. Because of the dominance of the superpowers world-wide, this has brought us to a “new historical stage,” requiring a “new global strategy.” The heart of this strategy is not revolution, but forming a “united front against the hegemonism of the two superpowers.” That is, in practice, uniting the “second world,” the “third world,” and U.S. imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism.
Thus, since this is their strategic approach, it is “correct” for the proletariat to unite strategically with its own bourgeoisie, and it is “correct” for the oppressed nation to unite strategically with their oppressors–with the exception of the Soviet Union. This is allegedly necessary to assure world peace and stop superpower hegemonism. To enhance this assertion, the CPC revisionists attempt to portray the superpowers as the only real enemies facing the world’s peoples today. They say that, “it is primarily between the United States, a capitalist country, and the Soviet Union, where capitalism has been restored, that world war is inevitable today.”[13] The fact is that the war will be fought by blocs of countries headed by the two superpowers. The lessor Imperialist bourgeoisies and the comprador bourgeoisies of the oppressed nations have a definite stake in the outcome of world war, and will cast their lot with whichever bloc can best serve its interest. Of course, this does not mean that no contradictions exist among the imperialist countries or their lackeys. As Lenin said:
If the war is a reactionary, imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the Imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world slaughter.[14]
Thus, we can see that the proletariat has no interest in uniting with any Imperialist bourgeoisie under the current conditions. The only strategic allies of the proletariat in this era are those whose interests lie in achieving the objective of our current strategy–to overthrow Imperialism world-wide. Thus the unity we seek strategically would include the international proletariat, the socialist countries, and the national liberation movements. This unity is against imperialism, social-imperialism, and all reaction. This means we oppose the “second world” bourgeoisies, as wall as the imperialist lackeys in the “third world”.
In discussing the two superpowers the CPC revisionists claim that the Soviet Union is the most dangerous source of a new world war, and that the spearhead of the united front should be against the Soviet Union. They state:
But if, despite what has been said above, we should still undiscriminatingly put the two superpowers on a par and fall to single out the Soviet Union as the more dangerous instigator of world war, we would only be blunting the revolutionary vigilance of the people of the world and blurring the primary target in the struggle against hegemonism.[15](emphasis added)
Our view on that question is in unity with that of the PLA. This view maintains that:
Practice has proved that the two superpowers, to the same degree and to the same extent, represent the main enemy for socialism and the freedom and independence of nations, the greatest force defending exploiting systems, the direct danger that mankind will be hurled into a third world war. To ignore this great truth, to underestimate the danger of one or the other superpower, or even worse, to call for unity with one superpower against the other is fraught with catastrophic consequences and great dangers to the future of the revolution and the freedom of the peoples.[16]
We firmly believe that Lenin’s teachings on the question confirms the correctness of the above viewpoint. Here we will show why. First of all, the Soviet Union is not the most dangerous source of world war. The source of any imperialist war is the rivalry of the imperialist power, and the nature of the imperialist system itself. This war danger will exist as long as imperialism does. The stated basis of the CPC view is that the Soviet Union is more aggressive, more rapacious, and because of this is forcing the re-division of the world. But this is true for any imperialist war. Because of uneven development, certain imperialists must at times force the redivision of colonies and instigate a world war. But this in no way makes that imperialist the “main danger”, or “most dangerous source” in world war. This analysis attacks the heart of the Leninist view on imperialist war. Lenin was very clear on this point:
The character of the war (whether it is reactionary or revolutionary) does not depend on who the attacker was, or in whose country the ’enemy’ is stationed; it depends on what class is waging the war and on what politics this war is a continuation of.[17] (emphasis added)
The question Marxist-Leninists must ask is what is the fundamental nature of the conflict between the Imperialist blocs headed by the U.S. and U.S.S.R.? It is clear that the focus of the struggle is for colonies, spheres of influence, markets, and raw materials. This conflict, on both sides, represents the interests of the bourgeois classes. It is an inter-imperialist conflict, which will lead to an inter-imperialist world war-a war in which the proletariat will side with neither imperialist bloc, but will work to overthrow all oppression.
There is one further point we must make on this subject. In any particular oppressed nation, the oppression may come directly from one or the other superpower. But this does not mean that the other superpower is any less a danger. The two superpowers, because of their imperialist nature, must strive to extend their domination and exploitation to all regions of the world, and the other imperialist powers strive to gain their fair share of the pie. They can leave no country “independent” or “non-aligned”. Such is the fundamental nature of imperialism. As a result, when one superpower is kicked out of a region, the other will force its way in. When Egypt kicked out the Soviet Union, Sadat promptly invited in the U.S. imperialists. When the US was driven out of Angola, the Soviets swiftly moved in. Thus, the revolutionary and progressive people of all countries must vigorously oppose both superpowers, struggle against every imperialism, and for sure, not rely on one superpower or imperialism to oppose another. In no way can we unite with or rely on U.S. imperialism because it is “less dangerous” on a world scale.
The strategic objective for U.S. Marxist-Leninists and class-conscious workers remains that of overthrowing U.S. Imperialism and the dictatorship of the U.S. bourgeoisie, and establishing the dictatorship of the U.S. proletariat. Likewise, our Soviet comrades and class-conscious Soviet workers have the strategic objective of overthrowing Soviet social-imperialism and the dictatorship of the revisionist-bourgeoisie, and reestablishing the proletarian dictatorship. U.S. Marxist-Leninists must brand as traitors to the cause of the international proletariat anyone who denies these strategic objectives and calls on the proletariat to unite with “its own”, imperialist bourgeoisie, give up proletarian revolution, and prepare to slaughter their class brothers and sisters in another imperialist country or oppressed nation. The CPC line is such a traitorous line and anyone who claims to be a Marxist-Leninist, regardless of their intentions, is carrying out class treason to the cause of the international proletariat if they follow the CPC line in practice.
In their call for a united front strategy against superpower hegemonism, the Chinese revisionists have in effect, called for the liquidation of the struggles for revolution in the countries belonging to their united front. This is clearly evident in their analysis of the so-called “third world.” The basic view of the CPC is that:
The countries and people of the third world constitute the main force in the worldwide struggle against the hegemonism of the two superpowers and against imperialism and colonialism.[18]
First of all, as has been pointed out in several instances, this view represents a totally non-class method of appraising the oppressed nations. This view ignores the internal struggles of the classes in an oppressed nation. It lumps together the oppressed peoples and the pro-imperialist and reactionary forces of their own countries. In the entire section devoted to this question (“The Countries and People of the Third World Constitute the Main Force Combatting Imperialism, Colonialism and Hegemonism”), there is absolutely no mention of the proletariat’s revolutionary strategy– to lead the struggle through the stage of revolutionary democracy and national liberation and on to the socialist revolution. The fact that the proletariat must win leadership of the national liberation struggles in order to eliminate all forms of national oppression is dictated by the proletariat’s objective class position i.e. it is the only thoroughly revolutionary class. Lenin points out:
The domination of finance capital, as of capital in general, cannot be abolished by any reforms in the realm of political democracy, and self-determination belongs wholly and exclusively to this realm. The domination of finance capital, however, does not in the least destroy the significance of political democracy as the freer, wider and more distinct form of class oppression and class struggle.[18.5]
The bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie in the oppressed nation, although they may play a revolutionary role to a certain extent for a certain time, are not capable of leading the national revolution through to completion because their class existence depends on capitalist relation in general. Only the proletariat can lead the national revolution–through uninterrupted stages–on to the socialist revolution, and only socialist revolution can successfully eliminate national oppression. Stalin sums up this M-L principle this way:
Leninism has proved, and the imperialist war and the revolution in Russia have confirmed, that the national question can be solved only in connection with and on the basis of the proletarian revolution, and that the road to victory of the revolution in the West lies through the revolutionary alliance with the liberation movement of the colonies and dependent countries against imperialism. The national question is a part of the general question of the proletarian revolution, a part of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.[18.7]
One point that should be made clear is exactly what stand should the proletariat take towards the local bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations. Lenin answered the question this way:
Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favor, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.[19]
When we examine the “struggles” being waged by the Shah of Iran, Mobuto in Zaire, Pinochet in Chile, etc., we see that they in no way wane a fight against imperialism, and in fact, are willing to sell their “own” peoples and countries and become imperialist lackeys. Thus, they mainly represent the comprador section of the bourgeoisie. There can be no strategic unity with these “anti-imperialists.” But even in examining the national section of the bourgeoisie, we must understand that their economic foundation lies in their ability to capture the home market and form national states. The complete domination of imperialism, however, has made this increasingly improbable. Thus the national bourgeoisie is crushed, or more often than not, becomes a comprador lackey of foreign imperialism. This phenomenon makes the likelihood of unity with the national bourgeoisie an unlikely event. As the Comintern declared at its Sixth World Congress:
It must be stated, however, that the national wars in which the proletariat, in the fight against imperialism, may enter into temporary alliance with the bourgeoisie, are becoming more and more rare, because, out of fear of the workers’ and peasants’ revolution, the bourgeoisie in the oppressed countries is becoming reactionary and is accepting the bribes of the imperialists. A new type of national war, in which the proletariat alone can play the leading role, is coming more and more to the front.[20]
From this we can see that the CPC view that “taken as a whole” the “third world” countries are for struggle against imperialism and hegemonism flies in the face of reality. The only “class” analysis the CPC offers is that, “A few are reactionaries. And there are even some agents of imperialism or social-imperialism.(!!)”[21] Of course, one must wonder who these reactionaries could be, since even a murderous butcher like the Shan of Iran is “progressive.”
The above analysis also contradicts the motion of the “non-aligned” world. Lenin has made clear that imperialism seeks to bring all countries under its financial and political domain. A country cannot remain for long within the imperialist network and not be dominated by one or another imperialist country. Although several countries have achieved formal independence in the past 30 or so years, in the main, the fundamental class nature of these states have remained the same, neo-colonialist rule has replaced the old colonial system. Thus, the question of genuine independence is still on the agenda. This independence cannot be achieved short of the establishment of revolutionary democracy, and then socialism, under proletarian leadership.
The CPC analysis on this question is thoroughly opportunist. They discuss the liberation movement of past years and say that, “At that time their struggle was aimed at winning national liberation and independence ... (our emphasis)”[22] Of course, now, all the “third world” should do is preserve its “independence” by fighting hegemonism, since hegemonism is what threatens their independence. No where in their analysis is there a thoroughgoing examination of the difference between formal democracy and its corresponding type of independence on the one hand, and revolutionary democracy and genuine democracy on the other. Latin American countries, for instance, gained formal independence when they defeated the Spanish colonialists and founded their republics. But genuine independence will depend on another revolution (a national liberation struggle) that deals a death blow to neo-colonial domination. For the CPC to call for a struggle to preserve formal independence is tantamount to calling for the preservation of neo-colonialism. Thus, according to the CPC line, neo-colonialism be strengthened, and the flames of revolution within the third world must be extinguished. This is a traitorous line to the exploited and oppressed masses in the oppressed nations which is why the imperialist bourgeoisie also speaks of the “third world” and “non-aligned” movement. In this regard, the CPC line also sabotages the proletariat’s struggle in the imperialist countries because the national-revolutionary movement is one of our main allies. The proletariat in the oppressor nations must vigorously support and strengthen the national-revolutionary movement against imperialism and develop a revolutionary alliance with this movement to achieve the destruction and elimination of imperialism and national oppression.
In the “three worlds” scheme, the “second world” represents the lesser developed imperialist countries. These countries, so the theory goes, oppress and exploit the oppressed nations, but are at the same time controlled and bullied by the superpowers. Thus they stand in contradiction to both the “first” and “third” worlds. However, they are still a force the “third world” can win over and unite with in the struggle against hegemonism.
How should we view this aspect of the “theory”? First, we must look at the “second world” dialectically and not as wishful thinkers–we must determine which aspect of their existence is primary. Are they primarily oppressed nations or oppressor nations? Few should challenge the fact that they are primarily oppressor nations. Second, we should examine the class nature of the conflict between the “first” and “second” world. As we see it, the contradictions that exist are primarily inter-imperialist ones. The struggles between these countries are over markets, raw materials, spheres of influence and the like. Should these struggles break out into war, the war will thus be primarily inter-imperialist. As Lenin teaches, the proletariat can side with neither bourgeoisie in such a war:
...imagine a slave-holder who owns 100 slaves warring against another who owns 200 slaves, for a more ’just’ redistribution of slaves. The use of the term of a ’defensive’ war, or a war, ’for the defense of the fatherland’, would clearly be historically false in such a case and would in practice be sheer deception of the common people, philistines, and the ignorant, by astute slave-holders. It is in this way that the peoples are being deceived with ’national’ ideology and the term ’defense of the fatherland’, by the present day imperialist bourgeoisie, In the war now being waged between slave-holders with the purpose of consolidating slavery.[23]
The CFC revisionists are raising the slogan “defense of the fatherland” in the present world conflict. One of their reasons is that the war would be between the Soviet Union and the “second world” countries. They say:
This world war, when it is between Soviet social-imperialism and the second world countries, will be a war between the aggressor and those fighting against aggression, between the annexationist and those against annexation ...[24]
This view is false on two counts. First, no world war will be fought only between the Soviet Union and the Western European countries. The other superpower, the United States, is the main imperialist opponent of the Soviets. And, with its military alliance, NATO, will spearhead the fight against the Soviet Union. The U.S. could not possibly sit idly by and watch a war that threatens its imperialist domain. But how does the U.S. fit into the strategy here7 According to the “three-worlders”, the U.S.’s role would have to be a positive one, since they are uniting in the fight against the Soviet “aggressors.” This is allegedly why the CPC applauds the strengthening of U.S. controlled NATO, and lauds the U.S. military presence in Western Europe, the Indian ocean, in the Pacific, etc. Second, the CPC argues that the “second world” is a victim of “annexation,” and that the national war it wages would be a just one and should enjoy the support of the international proletariat. Is the relationship between the superpowers and the “second world”, and in particular, between the Soviet Union and Western Europe, annexationist? To answer this, we have to understand what annexation is. Lenin said:
Annexations are maintained by the bonds of finance capital, banking capital, Imperialist capital. Herein is the modern, the economic foundation of annexations. Prom this angle, annexations are politically guaranteed profits on thousands of millions of capital ’invested1 in thousands upon thousands of enterprises in the annexed countries.[25]
Rather than the present conflict being “annexationist,” it is a fight over the rights to annex the oppressed nations. This conflict is one between rival sectors of imperialist finance capital who seek a redivision of the world that favors their own imperialist expansionist aims. An example that the CPC is fond of using is the recent invasion of Zaire by Soviet-backed forces. They applauded the moves of the French Foreign Legionaires in helping Mobuto repel the invaders. This, according to the CPC, was an example of the “second world” playing a role in thwarting Soviet aggression, as well as an example of cooperation between the “second” and ”third” worlds. What the CPC failed to mention was that the French were merely protecting their huge economic interests in Zaire, keeping it “free” for its “own” exploitation (and oppression). The CPC also failed to mention that Mobuto has long been a notorious lackey of Western imperialism, but as long as he “repels” Soviet aggression, this doesn’t matter. He remains one of those in the forefront of the struggle against hegemonism. Mobuto cannot be considered anti-imperialist while neglecting to fight the primary imperialist dominators of “his” country (i.e. the U.S. and France). And, France is no more aggressive than the E. Germans in Angola and Ethiopia.
Something further must be said about the relationship between the “second” and “third” worlds. The CPC revisionists recognize the fact that the lesser imperialist countries continue to oppress the “third world” countries. But how do they pose the question? They say:
Of course, it must be realized that some second world countries will not easily relinquish their deep-rooted exploitation of and control over many third world countries. For the third world to establish relations of equality and mutual benefit (!!) with the second will involve a long and arduous struggle.[26]
First, we can see how the CPC characterizes imperialism. Lenin was unshakeably clear in his analysis of imperialism. Imperialist exploitation has its “deep roots” in the predatory, expansionist nature of monopoly-capitalism and is NOT a policy which can be renounced by bourgeois governments–”arduous struggle” or no arduous struggle, imperialism does not fall unless the bourgeoisie is overthrown. No genuine Marxist-Leninist would pretend to call for a relationship of “equality” between oppressor and oppressed nations. Here we see the CPC specifically calling for the oppressed nations not to liberate themselves from the foreign domination of the lesser imperialist powers, but to seek some sort of relationship of “mutual benefit.” Thus, the proletariat and oppressed peoples of the colonies should renounce revolution in favor of cooperation with imperialists in the fight against hegemonism. As Lenin said:
It is impossible, even given the wish to do so, to renounce annexations without taking decisive steps towards throwing off the yoke of capitalism.[27]
The “second world” bourgeoisie can never be strategic allies of the proletariat and oppressed nations under today’s conditions. As we have pointed out, the days of a progressive bourgeoisie in an advanced capitalist country have long since passed. Our strategic objective in this epoch or era is to overthrow the world-imperialist system, and the “second world” bourgeoisie is part and parcel of that system.
A final point must be made on this question of the “second world.” The CPC makes much to-do about Lenin’s article “The Junius Pamphlet.” They say that this article supports their claim that the primary concern of the proletariat of the “second world” is not socialist revolution, but waging a fight for “national independence.” Nothing could be further from the truth, and we urge comrades to read the article in its entirety. How should be correctly analyze the article?
Junius (Rosa Luxemburg) had written a pamphlet entitled’ The Crisis of Social Democracy. The purpose of the pamphlet was to analyze the imperialist war of that time (WWI) and criticize the betrayal of the social-chauvinist German Social-Democratic Party. One of Junius’ propositions was that national wars were no longer possible in the Imperialist epoch. Lenin criticized this position because one of the features of imperialism is its subjugation of nations, and the struggle of oppressed nations against imperialism was not only probable, but inevitable. These national wars were progressive and should have the resolute support of the proletariat. This was the main point that Lenin was making. He was in no way advocating in the present war (WWI) that there should be a national war of the European countries. This is because the war was an imperialist one, and in such a war, the proletariat does not choose sides. Lenin did indicate, however, that national wars in the European countries should not be regarded as impossible. But he emphasized that this was highly improbable, and only possible under a special set of circumstances. One such condition is that “if the European proletariat remains impotent, say, for twenty years.” In applying that today, we would have to say that if, under conditions of imperialist war, the proletariat in Europe would remain impotent for such a long period of time that it would not be able to take advantage of a war-time situation. Of course, this is possible, but if the European proletariat abandons the fight for socialist revolution now, it will never turn imperialist war into civil war. And this abandonment is precisely what the CPC advocates now, when we are faced with the threat of war.
A second condition is “If the present war ends in victories like Napoleon’s and in the subjugation of a number of viable national states.” Today, this would mean that the Imperialist war has ended, and the Soviet Union has not only dominated the European countries, but hurled them backwards into some form of pre-democratic state, then a national war in Europe would be correct. But the actual war hasn’t even begun yet, and at present the Soviet Union does not have such a Napoleonic relationship to the European states. Yet, the CPC calls for national wars on the part of the European proletariat now. This is a thoroughly social-chauvinist position which denies the fact that today “The class that represents progressive development is the proletariat which is objectively striving to transform (the imperialist war) into a civil war against the bourgeoisie.[28]
Thus, the CPC line betrays the class interests of the proletariat in the lesser imperialisms, and in so doing also weakens the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and the national-revolutionary movement in the oppressed nations. The revolutionary movements in all countries gain strength from each other!
The rivalry between the two superpowers and their allies poses a real threat of a new world war. All the revolutionary and progressive peoples of the world are concerned because with war comes much destruction and suffering on their part. No one except imperialists and reactionaries want to see a world war, but at the same time, we must correctly understand its causes and the tasks that war place before the international proletariat.
What is the stand of the proletariat toward war? To answer this question, we must look at each war historically and separately. We must observe factors such as what caused the war, what classes are waging it, how are proletarian interests affected, etc. Although much distress and suffering inevitably accompany all wars, some wars are, and have been, progressive and revolutionary. Others are fought purely In the Interests of the oppressor classes. These are the questions we must consider in appraising the current situation, and in evaluating the line currently advanced by the CPC and its “theory of the three worlds.”
According to the CPC, the rivalry between the two superpowers is intensifying, and especially since the Soviet Union is on the offensive, the conflict cannot possibly be settled peaceably. Thus, since the superpowers are on a course of inevitable world war, the primary task of the world’s peoples is to step up the struggle against Soviet hegemonism, fight to ut off the outbreak of war, and strengthen the defense capabilities of the people of all countries. As they put it, “The key to putting off war lies... in the united struggle of the people of all countries against hegemonism.”[29] This line of the CPC goes against the heart of Lenin’s teachings on war. The current conflict, as we have said repeatedly, is an inter-imperialist conflict. This means that any war resulting from this conflict would be an imperialist war. The source of imperialist wars is the imperialist system itself. One of our tasks is struggle against war preparations, but our strategic objective remains that of overthrowing imperialism. And, as we will show, this means two entirely different things regarding our strategy and tactics.
Peace is definitely a desirable condition which the proletariat seeks more than anyone else. But there can be no genuine peace attained through liquidating the revolution. Lenin is quite clear on this point!
Marxism is not pacifism. Of course, the speediest possible termination of the war must be striven for. However, the ’peace’ demand acquires a proletarian significance only if a revolutionary struggle is called for.[30]
It is precisely this “revolutionary struggle” that the CPC liquidates in its anti-war strategy. Since the CPC does not call for any revolutionary struggle in opposing the war, just what do they advocate? The heart of the CPC view calls for (1) uniting all the worlds peoples (proletariat, petty-bourgeoisie, imperialists, fascists, Zionists, etc.) against the two superpowers–actually only the Soviet Union; (2) shoring up the “defense” capabilities of all countries against the U.S.S.R.
We dealt earlier with the opportunism exhibited in the plan to unite the “third,” “second,” and part of the “first” worlds against the Soviet Union. But what of the view of strengthening defense? Isn’t it correct for these countries to protect themselves against invasion? We ask, what is the class nature of the “defense” proposed by the CPC? What does “strengthening defense capabilities” consist of? Exactly what is being defended? One thing is clear, it is certainly not the interests of the proletariat being defended. Building up the defense of these countries means more of the resources of the state going to construct weapons of death, rather than to (inadequately) meet the needs of the people. And for what purpose? For the purpose of sending the workers of one country to fight the workers of another country for imperialist interests. For example, China lauded the decision of Jimmy Carter to begin production of tactical nuclear shells and warheads that can be quickly converted to neutron bombs. The only concern of China was that Carter may have been only bluffing (see PR, #43, 1978, p.28). In another example, the CPC praised France’s “new strategic concept,” a program for military spending and equipment of the armed forces covering a five-year period. This, according to the CPC, would help restrain Soviet expansion (see PR, #9, 1977, p.25). Of course, a recent example of this “repulsion” of Soviet aggression took place in Zaire. In yet another example, the CPC praises the “third world” countries for developing their own armies in the fight against hegemonism. In the case of some oppressed nations of the “third world” the nature of this armament may have an anti-imperialist character, while in most countries these armies are direct reserves of the imperialists’ military forces. One need only look at the army of the Shah and its activities to see what is being defended and in whose interests.
So what is to be accomplished by all the countries strengthening their defense? How will this advance the struggle? The CPC says:
So long as all this is done, it will be possible to hold up the timetable of the two hegemonists for launching a world war, and the people of the world will be better prepared and find themselves in a more favourable position should war break out.[31]
But in a more favorable position to do what? Not carry out revolution, but help “our side” win in the imperialist war. In other words, we should do what we can to help the “less aggressive” imperialist bloc defeat the “more aggressive” bloc.
And finally, where does China stand in regard to the present world situation? What is the role of a socialist country and how is China playing that role? The CPC says:
Faced with the gigantic task of speeding up our socialist construction and modernizing our agriculture, Industry, national defence and science and technology, we In China urgently need a long period of peace.[32]
This line is basically the same as that put forward by the Soviet Union several years ago. Not only does China want puce from imperialist war (albeit from the standpoint of a pacifist), the CPC now opposes any type of war, including revolutionary wars against imperialism. Thus, the CPC places its own bourgeois national interests, which is mainly restoring capitalism, above the interests of the international proletariat and the oppressed nations.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha all came to different conclusions about the role of socialist countries. They taught that the socialist countries represent a powerful base and center of the world revolution, and in them workers see the realization in practice of the ideals for which they themselves are fighting. Assist from the socialist countries is an indispensable link to facilitate the world’s revolutionary struggles. Thus, socialist countries cannot place themselves in such groups of countries as “third world” and “non-aligned” as the CPC has done.
In order to fully understand the role China now plays in the world, some discussion must be had of the internal changes that have been occurring the last several years. The “theory of the three worlds” emanates from a particular class basis, which is not in any way proletarian. But such a discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say now that China’s foreign policy is that of a national bourgeoisie and the Chinese proletariat has the task of overthrowing that bourgeoisie and re-establishing its dictatorship. While China in the past was on the socialist road and was a socialist country, China today is on the capitalist road and cannot be considered socialist. The “theory of the three worlds” was an integral part of the strategy of the Chinese revisionists’ to liquidate socialism in China and restore capitalism today, this “theory” is part of the Chinese revisionist-bourgeoisie’s drive to develop China into an imperialist superpower. The CPC revisionists have opened the dam to foreign capital and the Chinese proletariat and Chinese nation are again being exploited and oppressed by imperialism (see “Some Facts on the Chinese Revisionists; New March to Capitalism,” for some detail concerning penetration of foreign capital into China). At this time, we are uncertain as to whether the CPC revisionists will be able to transform China into an imperialist superpower or whether China will again become dominated by foreign capital.
As Lenin observed, during periods of imperialist war, the international working class movement evolves three trends. These are (1) the social-chauvinists, who recognize “defense of the fatherland” in an imperialist war, (2) the true internationalists, whose main feature is its complete break with both social-chauvinism and centrist”, and its resolute struggle against its “own” bourgeoisie, and (3) the centrists, who vacillate between the social-chauvinists and the true internationalists. Our view is that the line upheld in Resistance (at least through 1978) constitutes a centrist line. It is a line that seeks to squeeze between two exclusive points of view. However, it is a line that ultimately supports the social-chauvinist view of the CPC. Why do we say this? LPR states:
We consider as a correct Marxist-Leninist analysis of the present international situation the three worlds thesis advanced by our comrades of the Communist Party of China.[33]
But no sooner does the LPR state this that they produce a completely muddled and confused view of the international situation. This can be shown by examining some features of their position.
First, the LPR disagrees with the view that expresses the existence of two camps–the imperialist and the socialist. Instead of the basic division into two worlds–socialism and imperialism–LPR and the CPC substitute the “three worlds.” What this view does is liquidate socialism as a system. It denies the role of a socialist country, which is to serve as a center of the revolution, an indispensible link in the struggles of the international proletariat and oppressed nations. This view denies the truth in Stalin’s words:
The world has definitely and irrevocably split into two camps: the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism.[34]
Thus, even with the existence of only a single socialist country, we must still recognize the existence of the socialist world, and not make them a part of such non-class entities as the “non-aligned” world, or “third world.”
In this same article (“LPR’s Views on the International Situation,” vol.8, no. 10), they say that both superpowers are the main enemy of the world’s peoples, but, for various reasons, it will probably be the Soviet Union who triggers a new world war, however, this does not mean that the Soviet Union is the main enemy, and U.S. imperialism cannot be an ally in the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism. Accepting such an analysis, they warn, will lead to a policy of class collaboration with our bourgeoisie (points 2 and 3). LPR then criticizes the CP-ML for having precisely this viewpoint. How are we to evaluate this? First of all, contrary to what LPR says, our view does take into consideration the differences in the development of the superpowers, and the fact that possibly the Soviet Union will trigger the war. But as we stressed earlier, it makes no difference who starts the war. We must concern ourselves with the class nature of the war. This is what determines our strategy and tactics. Secondly, the LPR attributes the class collaborationist outlook to the CP M-L. But as everyone knows, it is the CPC, as we showed before in the quote from Teng, who advocates unity with the U.S. imperialists. So what we see is LPR grabbing some from the PLA line, some from the CPC line, and combining them into a thoroughly confused viewpoint.
In point 4 in the article, the LPR opposes the views that raise the contradiction between the “first” and “second” worlds to an absolute, that liquidate the contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie in the “second” and “third” worlds, and that liquidate the contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie in the “second world.” But as we have shown, all the above views are part and parcel of the CPC’s “three worlds theory.” In fact, LPR’s opposition would strike at the heart of the CPC strategy–to unite everybody and anybody against the Soviet Union.
In the following point, the LPR opposes the view that blurs over the class struggle within the “third world.” Again, we showed earlier how this view represents the essence of the CPC’s line on the “third world.” But, again, LPR refuses to recognize the source of this line, and refuses to see that this view is a component of a thoroughly social-chauvinist outlook.
In summing up the above points, we can draw out two main aspects of the LPR line which deserves further attention. One of these is their idealist and centrist outlook on the struggle between the PLA and CPC. In the article under discussion LPR says:
Comrades and friends, in socialist China and Albania, the Chinese and Albanian people under the leadership of the CPC and PLA, have scored tremendous victories in the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat in those countries.
If we examine the line struggle up to the point in time this article was written (Nov., 77), it becomes clear that the differences between the CPC and PLA were fundamental differences–differences of M-L principle. As the PLA had summed up by then:
The present-day anti-Leninist Theories of the ’three worlds’, ’non-alignment’, and so on, are also aimed at undermining the revolution, extinguishing the struggle against imperialism, especially against U.S. Imperialism, splitting the Marxist-Leninist movement, the unity of the proletariat advocated by Marx and Lenin, creating all kinds of groupings of anti-Marxist elements to fight the true Marxist-Leninist parties which stand loyal to Marxism-Leninism, the revolution.[35]
The second aspect of the LPR line which deserves a further look is their tendency to place the blame for the social-chauvinist tendency in this country on the CP M-L. It is quite obvious that the CP M-L is only carrying out the behests of their mentors–the CPC. An example will illustrate this.
We ask comrades to check out the LPR article on the U.S.-Sadat plan for capitulation in the Middle East (Resistance, vol. 9, no. 1). This article provides a perfect example of how the LPR recognizes the utter bankruptcy of the “three worlds theory” in practice. But instead of criticizing the line at its source, they prefer to disassociate the line from its practical application, and direct their fire at the CP M-L, rather than the CPC social-chauvinists. Allow us to use a lengthy quote from this article to show our point:
...There exists a very definite social-chauvinist trend in this country which under the cover of upholding the Three Worlds Thesis are in reality carrying out a line of class collaboration with the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie. The main proponents of this line is the Communist Party of the October League, which among other things calls for the arming of NATO by U.S. Imperialism, criticizes President Carter for not building the B-l bomber and the neutron bomb, etc. These opportunist defenders of the Three Worlds Thesis raise the fact that the national bourgeoisie of the second world countries have contradictions with the superpowers to an absolute and liquidate the fact that those same bourgeoisies oppress third world nations and peoples as well as their own working class. They have the view of ’all unity-no struggle’ on the national bourgeoisie of the third world countries. This is why in situations such as the one we are discussing–Sadat’s treason of the Palestinian and Arab peoples, Sadat’s alliance with U.S. imperialism–they keep a ’tactical silence’ on the question.
What can be said about the above views of LPR. First, the social-chauvinist trend they speak of is not “under the cover” of the “theory of the three worlds,” but takes its leadership from the CPC this theory. It is well known that it is the CPC that calls for collaboration with the U.S. bourgeoisie. The CPC supports arming NATO, the CPC criticized Carter for not building the B-l bomber and the neutron bomb. Furthermore, It is the CPC who supports Titoite revisionism, the CPC supported the Torrillos sellout of the Panama Canal, the CPC aids reactionaries such as Mobuto and the Shah of Iran, etc. And in discussing the Sadat sell-out of the Palestinian revolution, it was the CPC who kept a ”tactical silence” for several months before finally applauding Sadat’s crawling before Zionism.
No, LPR. The CP M-L does not distort the CPC’s “theory of the three worlds.” They apply it whole-heartedly. This is why Hua and Teng embrace the CP M-L, not that they are misled as you have said on occasion.
As we have shown, the “theory of the three worlds” is a thoroughly reactionary and anti-Leninist theory. It is a theory that, if followed would cause certain defeat to the struggle of the proletarian and national revolutionary movements. We have already shown how in each of these “worlds” the revolutionary forces are being asked to forego the revolution, and unite with all sorts of imperialists and reactionaries in order to combat “Soviet hegemonism.”
There are also extremely important implications of this theory for U.S. Marxist-Leninists. We should understand that we are clearly being asked to unite with our “own” bourgeoisie, and to support their preparations for imperialist war. We can not, as LPR and COReS does, pretend that the CPC does not want to see U.S. imperialism strengthened, and that support for U.S. war preparations is not consistent with this line. It is. And this can be seen in its more blatant form in the line and practice of the CP-ML. But LPR and COReS cannot continue to walk the fence on the practical applications of their line. Sooner or later, if this line is carried through to its logical conclusion, LPR and COReS will be lining up alongside the CP-ML and the U.S. bourgeoisie. Thus, we urge all honest comrades inside these organizations to reject this motion, and the opportunist leadership responsible for it. Comrades, the only way you can keep from becoming opportunists is to fight the opportunism and revisionism in your leadership. As the History of the CPSU(B) teaches us: “...whoever insists on a conciliatory attitude toward opportunists is bound to sink into opportunism themselves.”[37]
The proletarian internationalist line and practice on the proletarian and national-revolutionary movements is a fundamental component of the struggle to build a single, vanguard party of the U. S. proletariat. The “theory of the three worlds” is a revisionist line in practice, and one of the lines of demarcation separating revisionists and opportunists on the one hand, from the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces on the other hand. The main way in which U.S. Marxist-Leninists fulfill their proletarian internationalist responsibilities at this time, is in the struggle to build a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. Stalin teaches us that: “Without such a party it is useless even to think of overthrowing imperialism, of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat.”[38]
UPHOLD PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM IN PRACTICE!
BUILD A SINGLE, VANGUARD PARTY OF THE U.S. PROLETARIAT!
Kansas City Revolutionary Workers Collective
Wichita Communist Cell
Revolutionary Workers Press (RWP) NOTE: The RWP endorses this presentation, though there remains an area of unclarity on whether the periods within the epoch are strategic periods or tactical periods as expressed by the KCRWC-WCC comrades.
[1] Lenin, “Under A False Flag”, Lenin Collected Works (LCW), vol. 21, p. 145
[2] Lenin, “Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme”, LCW, vol. 24, p. 469-470
[2a] The WCC has not studied these particular tactical alliances, so this particular view is that of the KCRWC.
[3] Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, FLP, p.86
[4] Peking Review (PR)#45, 1977, p. 17
[5] PR 45, p. l1
[6] PR 45, p. 13
[7] Lenin, “Under A False Flag”, LCW, vol. 21, p.143
[8] ibid,
[9] Agence France-Presse Interview with Teng, Oct. 21-4 1977. Reprinted by Communist Committee
[11] PR 45, p. 19
[12] Lenin, ‥War and Revolution”, LCW, vol. 24, p.404
[13] PR 45, p. 16
[14]Lenin, “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, LCW, vol. 2 8
[15] PR 45, p. 23-24
[16] PLA, Theory and Practice of the Revolution, p.29
[17] LeninC “The Proletarian Revolution and the Reneoade Kautsky”, LCW, vol 2 8
[18] PR 45, p.24
[18.5] Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”; Lenin on the National and Colonial Questions, p.3
[18.7] Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, p.73
[19] Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, LCW, vol. 20, p. 411-412
[20] Comintern 6th Congress, The Struggle Against Imperialist War, p.33
[21] PR 45, p. 28
[22] PR 45, p. 25
[23] Lenin, “Socialism and War”, LCW, vol. 21, p.301
[24] PR 5, 1978, p. 10
[25] Lenin, “Blancism,” vol.2 4, p.36
[26] PR 45, p. 31
[27] Lenin, Blancism, p.36
[28] Lenin, The Junius Pamphlet, vol. 22, p.309
[29] PR 45, p.35
[30] Lenin, “Socialism and War”, vol.21, p.328
[31] PR 45, p.35
[32] PR 45, p.33
[33] Resistance, vol.8, #10, p.2
[34] Stalin, “Two Camps”, vol.4, p. 2 40
[35] PLA, Theory and Practice, p.34
[37] History of the CPSU(B), p.45
[38] Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, p.103