The following is Part 5 of UNITY’s study series on the theory of the three worlds. This installment shows how the two superpowers – the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. – are the source of a new world war, and presents a Marxist-Leninist view toward the question of war. The next installment will go into the importance of preparing against the war danger, struggling to postpone the outbreak of war, and the danger of appeasement.
We encourage our readers to send in comments, criticisms and questions about the columns. Also at the end of each study column is a list of suggested readings and discussion questions.
* * *
The danger of a new world war breaking out between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. is becoming greater with each passing day. The growing arms buildup and the conflicts between the two in Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Europe all reflect this trend.
Many people are raising questions about this growing war danger. What is the source of war? What kind of war will it be? What should our attitude be towards war?
An important part of Comrade Mao Tsetung’s theory of the three worlds concerns the question of war and addresses these questions.
Mao pointed out that the two imperialist superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., are in fierce contention with each other to achieve world hegemony. While the two may on occasion reach some temporary agreements and compromises, conflict is the main aspect of their relationship. Eventually the drive to achieve world domination will lead the two to go to war with each other.
Such a war is inevitable, for it develops independent of man’s will or intentions – it develops as a product of the imperialist system itself. As Stalin once pointed out, “To eliminate the inevitability of war it is necessary to abolish imperialism.” (Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., p. 37).
Today the two superpowers are the main imperialist strongholds in the world, and due to their superior economic and military strength, only they are in a position to launch a new world war.
The Soviet Union in particular is the more dangerous of the two and the more likely source of a new war. It is a superpower on the rise. The U.S. is still dominant in the world, but is losing its influence. The Soviet social-imperialists want to take over from the U.S. imperialists and are therefore more aggressive, relying more on military might to expand their control. In this way, the Soviet Union is similar to the fascist powers of the 1930’s which relied on military strength and aggression to compete with the economically stronger Western powers.
The focus of the rivalry between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. is Europe, with its highly trained working class and developed economic base. Whoever dominates Europe can use this to try to achieve world hegemony. The stationing of so large a number of troops in Europe is an indication of the sharpness of the contradiction there.
At the same time, the rivalry of the two superpowers extends to every region of the globe. Each superpower wants to dominate the many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America – to control their economies, to establish a military presence in key geographical areas, and to dominate trade routes, among other reasons. The more countries and regions a superpower can dominate, the stronger position it is in to wage war.
The attempts by the two superpowers to spread their influence over other countries, and their competition with each other, has generated or fanned up many local wars – such as the two Soviet-backed invasions of Zaire and the current Ethiopian offensive against Eritrea. In many other parts of the world, the superpowers are threatening aggression, and war could break out at any time.
Thus it can be seen that the two superpowers are the main source of war in the world today. They are headed on a course which will sooner or later lead to a world war, into which they will try to drag other countries.
A basic Marxist principle is that war is a continuation of politics, and thus the proletariat determines its attitude towards a particular war by examining what politics the war continues. In the past, the proletariat has opposed certain wars – wars which were a continuation of reactionary predatory politics, such as the Spanish-American War of 1898, or World War I. Regardless of the rhetoric used by the imperialists to justify them, both these wars were between robbers fighting over booty. Both were imperialist wars fought for the redivision of the world.
Then there have been progressive or revolutionary wars, such as wars for national liberation and wars against imperialist aggression, which the proletariat has supported. The war for national independence in Algeria during the 1960’s and the Korean people’s war of resistance against U.S. aggression are examples of revolutionary wars.
In other words, the proletariat differentiates between just and unjust wars.
In examining the world political situation today, it is clear the imperialist countries, and particularly the two superpowers, are preparing for war to continue their politics. As we pointed out above, the two superpowers are preparing for world war to redivide the world. In the event of such a war, the people of the world would condemn both sides, for such a war would be fought for reactionary aims. In the U.S., the proletariat would strive to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against the bourgeoisie to win socialism.
The superpowers and the other imperialist countries also may launch other wars, such as against the oppressed or socialist countries. It is possible, for instance, that the Soviet Union may attack China or the U.S. invade Korea. The Soviet Union could invade Iran or the U.S. may send in troops to Nicaragua. In these instances, the wars would be unjust on the side of the superpowers, and the people of the world would condemn them and support the victims of aggression in their fight for national sovereignty.
What, though, would be our attitude towards a war launched by one or the other superpower against the second world countries of Europe? Most of the second world countries are imperialist countries. Would such a war also be reactionary on both sides?
In our view, condemning both sides would be wrong. Such a position would not be based on a concrete analysis of the politics of this war. The aim of the superpowers, especially the Soviet superpower which is most threatening Europe, would be to subjugate the European countries and seize their rich industrial base. For the European people however, the war to defend national independence would be a just war and a war the proletariat would strive to lead. For the European people this war would be one for national survival and against enslavement. It would be a just war of national defense deserving of the support of the people of the world.
Two world wars have been fought already on European soil and important lessons can be learned from studying them to help understand what our stance should be, especially towards a war in Europe today.
As was mentioned earlier, the First World War was an unjust war on both sides. Lenin denounced the bourgeoisie of both sides of the war, since their aims were to take control over each other’s colonies. Lenin called for the workers to rise up and turn the imperialist war into a civil war to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
While Lenin laid stress on combating the opportunists of the Second International who sided with their own bourgeoisie in the war, he also opposed certain “left” views which denied the possibility of progressive, national wars in the era of imperialism. These “left” views maintained that the proletariat, either in the capitalist countries or in the oppressed countries, could never join with other classes to fight a national war as this would lead to class collaboration.
Lenin exposed these views as incorrectly denying the oppressed peoples the ability to unite with the broadest possible sectors to defeat the aggressors. Such incorrect, views are a form of social-chauvinism, that is, siding with the imperialist bourgeoisie against the efforts of the oppressed to free themselves.
Lenin, on the other hand, maintained that wars of national liberation were inevitable, progressive, and revolutionary. Furthermore, Lenin pointed out that a revolutionary national war could even be fought in Europe in the future. (“The Junius Pamphlet.” Vol. 22, Lenin Collected Works).
Lenin made it clear on many occasions he did not oppose all national wars:
The fatherland, the nation are historical categories. I am not at all opposed to wars waged in defense of democracy or against national oppression, nor do I fear such words as “defense of the fatherland” in reference to these wars or to insurrections. Socialists always side with the oppressed and, consequently, cannot be opposed to wars whose purpose is democratic or socialist struggle against oppression ....
Every fair-sized war is prepared beforehand. When a revolutionary war is being prepared, democrats and socialists are not afraid to state in advance that they favor “defense of the fatherland” in this war. (“Open Letter to B. Souvarine,” Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 197, emphasis in original).
Later during the 1930’s, it was becoming evident that another world war was in the making. Stalin and other Marxist-Leninists based themselves on a concrete analysis of the world conditions and concluded that the new world war that was brewing was not a typical imperialist war like World War I. They saw that the fascist powers were threatening the independence of all countries and aimed to replace democracy with fascist dictatorship. Stalin wrote: “The Second World War against the Axis powers, unlike the First World War, assumed from the very outset the character of an anti-fascist war, a war of liberation, one of the tasks of which was to restore democratic liberties.” (“Speech Delivered at an Election Meeting in the Stalin Election District, Moscow,” – from “Defense of National Independence and Second World Countries”, Peking Review No. 5, 1978.)
By 1941 when the war became fully anti-fascist in character after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Mao Tsetung clearly stated the Communist Party of China’s support for all the anti-fascist forces:
For Communists throughout the world the task now is to mobilize the people of all countries and organize an international united front to fight against fascism and defend the Soviet Union, defend China, and defend the freedom and independence of all nations. In the present period, every effort must be concentrated on combatting fascist enslavement. (“On the International United Front Against Fascism,” Collected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. III, p. 29).
These experiences from the past show that Marxist-Leninists cannot adopt a simplistic approach to the question of war. Each war must be evaluated concretely. War is a complex event; it precipitates many other developments. Wars often go through twists and turns, and consequently the nature of a war may also change. There may also be different types of wars which simultaneously take place. Thus the proletariat can keep its bearings only if it clearly focuses on reality and does not become muddled with preconceptions.
Today some may find it difficult to conceive that the European proletariat may have to come to the forefront to defend the national independence of their countries. There were similar doubts among some during the 1930’s, but it became evident that those who did not rally in “defense of the fatherland” against fascist invasion, actually found themselves in the same camp as the Nazi aggressors.
Mao Tsetung well described the proletariat’s view towards the reactionaries’ threat of war. He stated, “First, we are against it; second, we are not afraid of it.” The proletariat would like peace, which is one reason why the proletariat is striving to overthrow imperialism once and for all. But at the same time, he pointed out it does no good to be afraid of war. One must make preparations to deal with it, and in the eventuality of war, turn a bad thing into a good thing:
The First World War was followed by the birth of the Soviet Union with a population of 200 million. The Second World War was followed by the emergence of the socialist camp with a combined population of 900 million. If the imperialists insist on launching a third world war, it is certain that several hundred million more will turn to socialism, and then there will not be much room left on earth for the imperialists; it is also likely that the whole structure of imperialism will utterly collapse. (“On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People,” Selected Readings of Mao Tsetung, p. 473).
Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Is A Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, pp. 64-79.
Yenan Study Guide on the Theory of the Three-Worlds, pp. 8-11.
Peking Review No. 5, 1978, “Defense of the National Independence and Second World Countries.”
Lenin, “The Junius Pamphlet,” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22.
1. Why does war arise “out of the very nature of imperialism”?
2. Why are the two superpowers the only imperialist powers now in a position to launch a new world war?
3. Under what circumstances did Lenin oppose the slogan “defense of the fatherland”; under what circumstances did he support its use?
4. Why did Stalin note that World War 11 from the outset was different than the First World War and had an anti-fascist character?