In his speech to the United Nations on September 29, 1977, Huang Hua, the Chairman of the delegation of the People’s Republic of China, pointed out that the world has entered a new historic period in the epoch of imperialism and proletarian Revolution.
It is essential that every comrade gasp the significance of this point and its consequences. (PR#41, 1977)
A period of history is a stage in the development of the contemporary era. It reflects what Stalin calls an historic turn. These concepts are presented by Stalin in his essay CONCERNING THE STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF RUSSIAN COMMUNISTS. Essential excerpts from Stalin’s text are reprinted in our pamphlet, THE MAIN BLOW IN THE PRESENT HISTORIC PERIOD.
Stalin points out that “a party’s strategy is not something constant, fixed once and for all.” Instead, it ”alters in accordance with the turns in history, with historic changes.” In other words a new historic period, reflecting a separate historic turn requires a new disposition of forces and a new strategic plan for the direction of the main blow against the principal enemy of the revolution. Stalin writes:
These alterations in strategy find expression in the fact that with each separate turn in history a separate strategic plan is drawn up corresponding to that turn, and effective during the whole period from that turn to the next....Naturally, a strategic plan suitable for one period of history which has its own specific features cannot be suitable for another period of history, which has entirely different specific features.
It is important not to confuse a new historic period with a new era. We are in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. It is an era in which are combined, as Lenin says, civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in advanced capitalist countries with a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements including national liberation wars in the oppressed nations. These features are common to the entire era and to every historic period within the era.
Yet while there are underlying features in common to the entire historical epoch, there have also been several historic periods within that era, each with its particular features. As a result, while communist strategy throughout the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution has common features – namely the united revolutionary front of proletarian revolution with the liberation movement of oppressed nations and peoples – nonetheless, particular features of this overall strategy, as expressed in the disposition of forces drawn up for a specific historic period, can vary with each historic turn. For example, in the context of the united front against fascism, the Communist International in 1935 recognized the possibility of a government of an anti-fascist People’s Front – a government of struggle against fascism and reaction. While this possibility was appropriate to one period in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, it would be completely incorrect in another.
If changes in historic periods are confused with a change in the contemporary era, then every change in the strategic plan for international struggle would mean a new era Of course this is wrong.
There are common features which persist in every historic period of the contemporary era. But there are also features specific to the present period. The main ones are:
1) The main enemy is the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, who are the chief international exploiters and oppressors and the main source of war. The laws of their nature drive these two imperialist great powers to a rivalry for hegemony. This contention is bound to lead to war. Of the two superpowers, the USSR is the more dangerous.
2) The third world, composed of the developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere, constitutes the main revolutionary force in the struggle against superpower hegemonism.
3) The second world, composed of Europe, Japan, Canada, and other countries is an intermediate force which has a dual character. On the one hand it is bullied by the superpowers; on the other hand it has relations of exploitation with the third world. It can be allied with to a certain extent in the struggle against superpower hegemonism.
4) The strategic plan for this historic period is to form the broadest possible united front against superpower hegemonism based on the alliance of the socialist countries and the proletariat of the world with the oppressed nations and peoples, unity with the third world and with all countries subjected to aggression, interference or threats of superpower hegemonism, and for the united front to direct its main blow against the hegemonism of both superpowers.
The new historic period of international struggle against superpower hegemonism can only be grasped on the basis of Chairman Mao Tsetung’s penetrating analysis of three worlds. That is the significance of Chairman Mao’s theory. It is based on a profound sum up of the development of the basic contradictions of our time and of the changes in political forces. It reflects three fundamental facts:
1) The restoration of capitalism in the USSR, the emergence of the USSR as a social imperialist power, and the disintegration of the socialist camp;
2) The decline of US imperialism and the disintegration of the camp of US imperialism;
3) The rise of the third world. This is reflected above all in the victories of the peoples of the third world in armed struggle for national liberation in Indochina, in Africa and in the Mideast most notably, in the overwhelming number of third world nations achieving political independence and playing an important role in world affairs, and in the steps taken to consolidate national sovereignty and economic independence, as for example with the 200 mile limit to territorial waters, raw material cartels, nationalizations, the new international economic order, etc.
These three facts, taken together, constitute the historic turn giving rise to the new historic period. Mao’s strategic concept of the differentiation of three worlds gives correct orientation to the international struggle in these new conditions. In light of the changes which have taken place in the international situation, it enables us to identify who are our enemies and who are our friends, a decisive question for the world revolutionary struggle.
The significance of this new historic turn can be appreciated by reviewing historic turns which have occurred since October 1917. While the question of identifying historic turns demands a great deal more study throughout our movement and can only be approached tentatively, four broad periods seem undeniable:
–the defense of the Soviet Republic after the October Revolution and the ex tension of the operation of the revolution;
–the united front against fascism and the period of the anti-fascist war;
–the emergence of the socialist camp after World War II and the dominance of US imperialism over the capitalist world;
–the present period of the struggle against superpower hegemonism.
1) The era of imperialism and proletarian revolution begins with the first imperialist war and the October Revolution which was “history’s most radical turn.” The first historic period of the era reflected the life and death struggle to defend the victorious socialist revolution and to extend its operation to other countries. Lenin explained the particular focus of political forces in this historic period in his message to the Second Congress of the Communist International:
World political developments are of necessity concentrated on a single focus – the struggle of the world bourgeoisie against the Soviet Republic, around which are inevitably grouped, on the one hand, the Soviet movements of the advanced workers in all countries, and, on the other, all the national liberation movements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities...
2) The second period reflects the consolidation of socialism in the USSR, the collapse of the imperialist order installed after World War I (the Versailles and Washington treaties), and the rise of fascism and the anti-fascist war. These constituted a historic turn marked by Dimitrov’s report to the VII Congress of the Communist International on the united front against fascism. The particular features of this period were that the Soviet Union had grown in strength and the world bourgeoisie had to accommodate itself to Soviet power. Soviet entry into the League of Nations in 1934 and the mutual aid pact with France reflect this, as well as the leading role of the Soviet Union in the struggle against imperialist war. In addition, the aggressor imperialist countries were contending with the old imperialist powers for a new division of the world. This contention was the source of the second world war. While the contradiction between socialism and capitalism intensified during this period, the Soviet Union gathered around itself all the oppressed peoples and nations subjugated by the fascist aggressor and the antagonism of the war developed broadly as one between fascism and all the democratic and freedom loving nations and peoples for their liberation.
3) The third historic turn comes with the defeat of fascism and reflects the vast gains for socialism after World War II, including the victorious Chinese revolution. The socialist countries composed of Albania, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union, the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam, and eventually Cuba, made up a vast camp around which were grouped the oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the revolutionary proletariat of the advanced countries and other peace-loving democratic forces. Without doubt, the forces of world reaction were preparing a third world war during this period and the danger of war existed. However, the democratic forces of the world, grouped around the socialist camp, had surpassed the reactionary forces and were capable of overcoming the danger of a new world war.
4) The fourth historic turn of the contemporary era gives rise to the present historic period and as we said earlier is marked by (1) the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the disintegration of the socialist camp which emerged after World War II, (2) the decline of US imperialism and the disintegration of the western imperialist camp headed by US imperialism and (3) the rise of the third world. The two superpowers are the main enemy and the focus of struggle is between the oppressed nations of the third world and the two superpowers contending for hegemony and the extension of national oppression. The main force in international struggle is the third world and the main blow of struggle is directed against both superpowers.
The source of war in this period is the contention of the superpowers for the extension of hegemony. As long as the system of imperialism and social imperialism exists, war is inevitable and this is independent of man’s will. While the struggle against superpower hegemonism in the present period cannot in itself eliminate the inevitability of imperialist war, it is possible to put off that war until a revolutionary situation arises in the heartland of imperialism and social imperialism. What the Chinese comrades said in 1963 remains valuable:
The center of world contradictions, of world political struggles, is not fixed but shifts with changes in the international struggles and the revolutionary situation. We believe that, with the development of the contradiction and struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Western Europe and North America, the momentous day of battle will arrive in these homes of capitalism and heartlands of imperialism. When that day comes, Western Europe and North America will undoubtedly become the center of world political struggles, of world contradictions. (APOLOGISTS FOR NEOCOLONIALISM)
Of course today Russia also has become a heartland of imperialism and so is also destined to become a center of world political struggles.
If in the meantime war does break out in this period, the United Front Against Superpower Hegemonism will put the world’s people in the most favorable position to wage a just war against aggression.
Four fundamental contradictions are common features of the entire era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Each characterizes every historic period of this era, including the present period. None alone is adequate to characterize the era at any time and none can be resolved except by the complete overthrow of imperialism and social imperialism. These four contradictions are:
1) the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries;
2) the contradiction between the socialist countries and imperialism;
3) the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism;
4) the contradiction among imperialist powers.
The attack on the theory of three worlds argues that Chairman Mao’s thesis ignores these contradictions or pretends to be a substitute for them. This is incorrect. Chairman Mao’s differentiation of world political forces into three represents an application of these contradictions, which are common to the entire era, to the present historical period. It analyses them concretely in their interconnection. It shows the historical changes and developments which have taken place as a result of their operation.
In ON CONTRADICTION, Mao Tsetung teaches that we must show how the contradictions which characterize a thing operate at each stage in its development. Movement from one stage to another is a reflection of change in the relationship of the contradictions which govern its growth.
This is true even of the four fundamental contradictions which characterize the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. While all four contradictions remain fundamental and influence every stage in the development of the entire era, each can vary in its influence and at different stages in the entire process. At one point, one contradiction will play a major role; at another point another will come to the fore. Thus in their operation, the relationship of the four contradictions to one another is not fixed or frozen. In particular, they do not determine equally the course of development of the contemporary era in each historic period.
Today the main focus of contradictions in international political struggle is between the peoples and countries of the third world and the superpowers for the extension of hegemony. This contradiction itself reflects the major role played at this time by the contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism. But it also reflects the contradiction among imperialist powers, the contradiction between socialism and imperialism, and, in fact, shows the influence of all four fundamental contradictions.
The major role played by the contradiction between the peoples and countries of the third world and the superpowers does not mean that the contradiction between socialism and imperialism has been forgotten. Socialist countries still exist, the leading role of socialist countries in the third world and the united front still exists, and the struggle of the proletariat worldwide for socialist revolution still exists. But it is a simple historical fact that thirteen once mighty socialist countries which followed a common line in world affairs based on the science of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism were betrayed by bourgeois elements which seized power in a number of these countries and restored capitalism. That is the historical experience summed up in the position that the socialist camp which emerged after World War II has ceased to exist.
Therefore, when those who attack the theory of three worlds pretend that the major focus of world political struggle at this time is between the socialist camp and imperialism, they expose their failure to make a concrete analysis of the actual changes which have taken place in recent years.
When the four fundamental contradictions of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution are raised without making an analysis of their actual operation in a particular historic period, the significance of factors giving rise to a historic turn inevitably are ignored. Without identifying the change in the relationship of these contradictions, it is impossible to analyze the particularities of a new historic stage in the contemporary era.
Does the theory of the differentiation of the three worlds require revolutionaries of a second or third world country today to put off revolution in the present period in order to promote third world unity, for example, or the struggle against the superpowers?
No. This line, which is based on a distortion of the three world theory, makes two errors.
First, the theory of the three worlds is a differentiation of international political forces and an orientation for international struggle. The job of working out revolutionary theory and strategy for any given country in the first, second or third world requires a differentiation of national political forces as well as world political forces. This can only be done by the Marxist-Leninist party of that country applying the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism to its concrete situation.
The three world theory cannot take the place of this analysis. Instead, it shows the orientation of the national political struggle in every country in relation to the international struggle against superpower hegemonism. Second, the popular struggles of the working and oppressed peoples of the third world do not weaken the struggle against the superpowers, but strengthen it. Facts prove that a country where the national democratic movement is strong will make a greater contribution to the united front against hegemonism than one where the movement is weak. A country where the proletariat is in power will make the greatest contribution to the unity of the third world and to its struggle against imperialism and social imperialism.
For example, the contribution of Iran to the struggle of the third world against hegemonism is directly related to the strength of the genuine national and popular movement in Iran. Government policies which stifle popular resistance to imperialism and reaction weaken this movement and weaken the contribution Iran can make to the struggle of third world people. In fact, third world unity would not be weakened, but strengthened by the popular overthrow of the Shah of Iran.
As Huang Hua, the Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, said in a speech to the General Assembly of the UN in 1977:
Every victory in the revolutionary struggle of the people of all countries helps to weaken the superpowers, thwart their aggressive and expansionist ambitions, upset their war plans and deployments, and put off the outbreak of a new world war. (PR#41, 1977)
The same principles apply to revolutionary struggles in the second world. Opportunists claim that the three world theory holds back revolution in Europe today because it liquidates the class struggle of the proletariat in order to promote unity with the monopoly capitalist bourgeoisie of this or that European country against the superpowers, and particularly against the USSR, in the defense of national independence. However, the principal contradiction in a European country such as France today is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and proletarian revolution is on the agenda. While the threat to national independence posed by the two superpowers, and especially by the USSR, is extremely serious, it is the class struggle of the proletariat which is the best guarantee of the independence of the French nation. This is the lesson of the Paris Commune.
In both second and third world countries, there is nothing inconsistent in the efforts of revolutionaries to mobilize the people for the overthrow of a particular government, and, at the same time, to support particular stands of the government which contribute to the struggle against superpower hegemonism. Also, revolutionaries worldwide can support popular struggle against the Shah of Iran, for example, and at the same time support this or that position of the Shah which contributes objectively to the strength of the united front against superpower hegemonism.
Third world regimes deeply tied to one or the other superpower depend on superpower support. Actions taken in common with other countries which undermine superpower influence, undermine, in the long run, the props on which these regimes rest.
The attack on Chairman Mao’s theory of the three worlds fails because it does not rest on a concrete analysis of the specific features of the present historic period. There is a call for revolution without specific guidance for struggle either nationally or internationally. This is inevitable. While there is an analysis of the common features of the contemporary era, there is no specific analysis of the particular features of the present historic period on which specific guidance depends.
Revolutionary strategy and tactics demand an accurate assessment not only of the main features of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution in general, but also a concrete assessment of the specific features of the present historic period of the contemporary era in particular.
For the entire era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the proletariat and the countries of proletarian state power are at the center of world history and determine its direction. Only proletarian revolution and the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat can overthrow imperialism and social-imperialism ism and guarantee socialist construction. In the present historic period, while the socialist countries and the revolutionary proletariat must play a leading role, it is the countries and peoples of the third world as a whole which are the main force in the struggle against superpower domination. In the era as a whole, the liberation struggles of oppressed nations are a reserve of proletarian revolution. As the main force of the present period, the struggle of the third world against superpower hegemonism provides a mighty impulse to the intensification of the revolutionary crisis in the heartlands of imperialism and social imperialism.
In the US, our task is to make proletarian revolution. The growing danger of imperialist war means we must prepare to make revolution in conditions of war – that is, we must prepare to turn imperialist war into civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Our task now is to accumulate revolutionary strength. At the same time, we must give concrete aid and support to the countries and peoples of the third world and to all peoples subject to superpower domination in a common struggle against superpower hegemonism.