It is significant that the dispute over Mao Tsetung’s theory of the differentiation of the three worlds is a dispute over theory. Theory has a specific meaning for Marxist-Leninists. It is the study of the objective conditions of the working class movement. A theory of the international situation is a study of the objective conditions under which international class struggle is taking place at this time. The theory of three worlds draws a line of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism because it involves differences over the way we see the objective reality of international political struggle. It is a dispute over what the decisive facts in international struggle are and how we analyze them.
Theory presents the laws or internal relations which govern objective conditions. Strategy on the other hand, which is the conscious and systematic movement of the proletariat and its allies towards a definite goal, does not itself study the objective processes of the movement. Nonetheless, it is obvious that strategy cannot succeed unless it is based on a good understanding of objective conditions – that is, unless it is based on theory. Stalin says that strategy must base itself entirely on the conclusions of the theory of Marxism. That is what Mao Tsetung meant when he said seek truth from facts as a guide to action. To seek truth from facts is the job of theory. Based on that we arrive at strategy which is a guide to action. Chairman Mao’s theory of the differentiation of three worlds is a great strategic concept because it is a differentiation or classification of world political forces which makes it possible to identify the essential features of strategy. “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?” This, Mao said, “is a question of first importance for the revolution”.
A Marxist-Leninist presentation of the relation of theory to strategy, as well as the essential features of strategy is presented in Stalin’s essay on THE STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF RUSSIAN BOLSHEVIKS. In studying the theory of three worlds, it is important to recognize that the defense of the Chinese Communist Party of Chairman Mao’s theory rests on an orthodox presentation thoroughly consistent with Stalin’s analysis. In other words, Chairman Mao’s theory gives us a differentiation which meets the strategic requirements of the contemporary struggle of the international proletariat and oppressed peoples and nations of the world. As Chairman Hua Kuo-feng said at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of China, “Chairman Mao’s thesis differentiating the three worlds gives correct orientation to the present international struggle and clearly defines the main revolutionary forces, the chief enemies, and the middle forces that can be won over and united, enabling the international proletariat to unite with all the forces that can be united to form the broadest possible united front in class struggles against the chief enemies on the world arena.”(PR#35, 1977)
This corresponds to Stalin’s identification of the main features of revolutionary strategy: for today,
–the two superpowers are the main enemy,
–the third world is the main revolutionary force,
–the second world is a middle force, and
–the formation of the broadest possible united front has for its purpose to strike the main blow against the hegemonism and war policies of both superpowers.
Obviously, these questions – who is the main enemy, who are the main and middle forces, and what is the direction of the main blow – these factors do not remain fixed, but change according to changes in history. When they change, there must be a new study of objective conditions and a new classification of world political forces in order to make it possible to identify the main features of strategy.
For example, when Lenin differentiated world political forces into three after the first world war, he identified the great imperialist powers – at that time the US, Britain, France and Japan – as the main enemy in international struggle. Later, however, with the collapse of the postwar world and the rise of the fascist aggressor countries, Japan, Germany and Italy became the main enemy in international struggle. Following World War II US imperialism for a time lorded it over other capitalist countries and was the main enemy of the peoples of the world. Then with the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and the rise of Soviet social imperialism the world’s people found themselves saddled with a new gangster. Chairman Mao said in a telegram to Albanian party leaders in 1968:
The Soviet revisionists and the US imperialists have done so many foul and evil things that the revolutionary people the world over will not let them go unpunished. The people of all countries are rising. A new historical period of struggle against US imperialism and Soviet revisionism has begun. (PR#45, 1977, p.36)
To fail to take up the study required by new conditions would be the worst kind of dogmatism, and no party or organization can claim the title of vanguard if it justifies theoretically its refusal to keep pace with changes in the world situation.
Were the First World War and the October Revolution fundamental historic changes which required a new appraisal of world political forces? Of course they were–the October Revolution was history’s most radical turn.
Were the rise of fascism and the Second World War? Yes, undeniably so.
The defeat of fascism and the rise of US imperialism? Yes again – all these represented new situations in international class struggle that required a new classification and appraisal of political forces if Marxist-Leninist parties were to be able confidently to give class conscious and sure leadership to the international proletariat and oppressed peoples.
In the same way, the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the socialist camp, the decline of US imperialism and the disintegration of the Western imperialist camp, and the rise of the third world all reflect a fundamental historic change in world affairs. Chinese foreign minister Huang Hua said to the UN general assembly last fall: “We are now in a new historical period – a period of struggle against superpower hegemonism.” (PR#41, 1977)
Because there is a new period, there must be a new classification of world political forces. A new theory summing up the objective conditions of international struggle is required so that a global strategy can be formulated for the international proletariat according to the new relationship between ourselves, our friends and our enemies. Chairman Mao’s theory of the three worlds is a great strategic concept because it meets precisely this demand.
We need to emphasize what is a decisive point for getting a good grasp of the significance of Chairman Mao’s theory. A new classification of world political forces is what the Chinese comrades have referred to as a “differentiation”. Chairman Mao’s theory is the theory of the differentiation of the three worlds. Honest comrades have been confused by the opportunist attack because they have not really gotten to the bottom of this question of differentiation.
The study of how Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin differentiated world political forces in the historical conditions of their time illustrates two fundamental points: First, it is on the basis of the way the great teachers differentiated world political forces that each worked out a strategy and tactics of the international proletariat. Second, the differentiation which each used as the basis for strategy and tactics was a conclusion reached after a comprehensive examination of the various fundamental contradictions in the world at the time. As the Chinese comrades say in reference to Lenin and Stalin in CHAIRMAN MAO’S THEORY OF THE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE THREE WORLDS IS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO MARXISM-LENINISM.(PR#45,1977,p.12)
When they had to make a comprehensive and concrete differentiation of the world’s political forces in a given period, they started with an over-all investigation of the many fundamental contradictions existing in the world.
There is a distinction here between a “concrete differentiation ” and a “fundamental contradiction”. The essential difference is that a differentiation will be a conclusion reached after a comprehensive examination of the operation of the four contradictions in a particular historic period.
We pointed out earlier that the four contradictions are all common to the entire era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. For that very reason they cannot constitute a concrete historical description of the particular alignment of forces at any particular period in the era.
We could never study the objective conditions in international class struggle, for example, without considering the impact of each of these contradictions. But the description or classification that would best reflect objective conditions would not rest on any one of these contradictions taken in isolation. Instead, it would reflect the effect of all of them in their interconnection.
We can give examples from natural science:
The direction of the flow of a river, for example, is determined by a number of factors:
–climatic conditions is one;
–the character of the valley floor over which the river flows is another, as well as the rock structure;
–the degree of slope is a factor;
–the amount and velocity of water must be evaluated; and so forth.
Each of these factors is common to the flow of every river and operates in every situation to determine the path of a river.
But we do not describe the division of a particular river into three paths, for example, simply by identifying the factors which are at work.
If we only explained that these factors operated and stopped our investigation there, we would not give a concrete description of the path of the river in any specific situation.
We could not explain why, for example, one river cuts a straight channel in one situation, another meanders with extensive zigzags, and another is divided into separate streams. The same factors are operating in each case, but the alignment of the river in each instance is different.
Or take an example from chemistry. The combination of the atoms of carbon and hydrogen – which also reflects a contradiction – gives rise to a bewildering variety of different substances with very different properties: methane, gasoline, paraffin wax, asphalt, rubber and plastic are all products which are the result of the fundamental contradiction between hydrogen and carbon. But obviously we would not describe very adequately the different properties of these different substances if we said only that these different substances were based on the fundamental contradiction between carbon and hydrogen.
What any serious investigator would want to know would be how to differentiate these different substances and in particular, how the operation of the contradiction between hydrogen and carbon could give rise to these different results under different conditions.
For example, an isomer is the technical name for two compounds that have the same number and the same kind of atoms, but which are arranged differently. This different chemical alignment can give rise to different substances with different properties which must be handled differently.
In a sense, then, by way of analogy, the differentiation or alignment of political forces made by Lenin, Stalin and Mao during the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution are political isomers. They are the result of the operation of the same four fundamental contradictions, but each reflects a different political arrangement, a different alignment of world political forces, and therefore each must be handled differently from the standpoint of strategy and tactics in international class struggle.
In other words, a comprehensive and concrete differentiation of political forces such as Lenin made after World War I and Stalin made after World War II reflect an investigation which shows the operation of all the fundamental contradictions of the era. The same is true of Mao’s differentiation of contemporary world political forces into three. It does not ignore the four fundamental contradictions, it applies them.
It is obvious that the four fundamental contradictions of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution do not identify, in themselves, once and for all, for every stage of the era the main features of revolutionary strategy – i.e. main enemy, main force, middle forces and the direction of the main blow. Political leadership would be easy if the job were that mechanical.
Instead, there must be a concrete investigation of the operation of the fundamental contradictions under the particular conditions of each historical stage of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. The goal of this investigation is a differentiation that corresponds to the requirements of strategy.
On this basis we see how shallow the opportunist attack is which says that there is only one differentiation of political forces valid for the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and that is the division of the world into the socialist camp and the imperialist camp. The forces which mount this attack point out that in 1919 Stalin divided the world into two camps – the camp of socialism and the camp of imperialism. Therefore, they conclude, this division must hold today. The only valuable and possible classification of world political forces during the entire epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, they maintain, is into the camp of socialism and the camp of imperialism. This, needless to say, is dogmatism.
It is true that Stalin did say in 1919 that the world was divided into the camp of socialism and the camp of imperialism. But he also said five years later that the world was divided into the camp of oppressor and oppressed nations. Then during the Second World War he spoke of a radical demarcation of forces and the formation of two opposite camps: the camp of the Italo-German coalition, and the camp of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition.
What are we to make of all these camps? Should we conclude, as the Revolutionary Communist Party likes to, that Stalin is hopelessly muddled?
Of course not. The point is that when Stalin spoke of the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism or when he spoke of the camp of oppressor nations and the camp of oppressed nations, he was referring to particular contradictions operating in the world and he was not making a concrete and comprehensive differentiation of world political forces on which to base a global strategy for international class struggle. He identified contradictions which had to be taken into account. But he did not mean that they should be taken account in isolation from other contradictions operating also. In other words, he does not put forward a comprehensive and complete classification.
On the other hand, when Stalin did talk about an actual alignment of forces which served as the foundation for strategy and tactics, his classification did not fall exactly, or in any kind of pure way, within the framework of any of the four contradictions. This is true of the classification Stalin made between the formation of two camps during the Second World War:
in the course of the war imposed upon the nation by Hitlerite Germany, a radical demarcation of forces and the formation of two opposite camps have taken place: the camp of the Italo-German coalition and the camp of the Anqo–Soviet-American coalition.(PR#7,1978)
No one suggested that by this demarcation of camps Stalin denied the operation of the four fundamental contradictions or that he ignored class analysis or had forgotten the historical mission of the proletariat.
Yet his demarcation of forces is not a differentiation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; it is not a differentiation between socialism and capitalism; it is not a differentiation between oppressed and oppressor nations – and yet it is undoubtedly correct? How can this be?
The answer is that this demarcation reflects the operation of all these fundamental contradictions and of their interconnections under specific historical conditions. As a result, it was the basis for giving good guidance to the action of the proletariat and oppressed nations in international struggle at that time.
The theory of three worlds is no different. Like the division into the camp of the Italo-German coalition and the camp of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition, it does not present socialism all on this side and capitalism all on the other side. Instead it is a comprehensive classification based on a sum-up of the operation of all the basic contradictions in the contemporary world. It is based, Chairman Hua Kuo Feng tells us, on a study of the political and economic status of each country in the international context. In appearance it seems to involve relations between countries and between nations in the present day world, but, in essence, it bears directly on the vital question of present day class struggle on the world scale.
Therefore it is an out and out slander to pretend that Chairman Mao ignored class analysis in formulating the theory of the differentiation of three worlds. There are two separate questions here. Is the differentiation between the camp of the Italo-German coalition and the camp of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition a contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? Obviously not. Does it take into account a class analysis of the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? Obviously it does.
The same is true of the theory of three worlds. In an article on Soviet social colonialism in Peking Review, the writer emphasized Lenin’s point that if we want to grasp the real essence of a country’s foreign policy, we must make a comprehensive class analysis of its economic base and its general policy in international relations. (PR#49, 1977)
Without a doubt, Chairman Mao’s study of the political and economic status of each country in the international context demonstrates a comprehensive class analysis of its economic base and general policy in international relations. For example, the economic base of Soviet social imperialism is state-monopoly capitalism, the hallmark of which is plunder, expansion and contention for world hegemony and its entire foreign policy hinges on its scramble for world domination. Can it be said that this conclusion does not rest on class analysis? Of course not. The same is true of the United States. For example, while direct US private investments abroad stood at under 12 billion dollars in 1950, they reached over 137 billion in 1976. This high and rapid concentration of monopoly capital formed the economic foundation of the US as an imperialist superpower.
In the countries of the second world, the state apparatus is also controlled by monopoly capital as in the two superpowers, but they are not superpowers. While they still engage in the imperialist striving for domination, they are not at this time capable of striving for military control on a world scale as are the two superpowers. Britain’s military spending, for example, is roughly equivalent to that of Iran, and a mere fraction of that spent by either superpower. In addition, the working class of the second world as well as other sectors of the population including elements of the petty bourgeoisie and even of the bourgeoisie are variously subjected to exploitation, bullying or control by one or the other superpower. Can it be said that this analysis does not rest on class analysis? Would it be a more or less thorough class analysis to obliterate this distinction between first and second world? Obviously it would be less thorough.
Whatever the differences in social and political conditions that exist among them, a comprehensive class analysis of the economic base of the oppressed nations of the third world shows common features. In every one of these countries the proletariat has been historically and is today subjected to ferocious super-exploitation by the colonialist and imperialist powers and especially by the two superpowers. In the vast majority of these countries the peasantry continues to live under conditions of genuinely brutal backwardness and deprivation, and typically even where there is impressive urban development, this has had no impact on the feudal conditions of existence in the countryside. In every one of these countries there is a patriotic sector of the national bourgeoisie whose development is blocked by imperialism, especially by the hegemonic ambitions of the superpowers.
Granted that agents of imperialism and social imperialism exist in many of these countries. Granted that the bourgeoisie in these countries is tied by a thousand and one threads to imperialism and social imperialism and plays a vacillating role in the national struggle – do these facts, which no one has ever pretended to deny, mean that the oppressed nations are not linked by common oppression and that they do not have a common economic foundation with common economic problems and a common struggle? Can it be said that these conclusions do not rest on class analysis? No it cannot.
Or take one final example. The socialist countries also, according to the theory of three worlds, are part of the third world. The economic foundation of the socialist countries is socialist ownership of the means of production and its policies are based on the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. There is no final victory of the socialist revolution in any country until the victory of socialism and communism worldwide because the bourgeoisie continues to exist externally and internally and never, historical experience has shown, gives up its hopes for capitalist restoration. Therefore like the oppressed nations of the third world, the socialist countries cannot rest until the imperialist system has been entirely done away with. Because they, together with the international proletariat, can carry the struggle through to the end, they stand in the vanguard of that struggle. By common experience, common tasks in struggle, and community of interests – past, present and future, the socialist countries belong to the third world.
Can it be said that this conclusion does not rest on a class analysis? Can it be said that by putting China or any other socialist country in the third world this ignores that it is a socialist country or that it alters the socialist orientation of China’s development for example? Of course not. The mere fact that certain forces could make such a charge reflects on the contrary that they themselves have failed to study the class character of the socialist countries and to compare that analysis with an analysis of the economic foundation and class forces which make up the countries of the third world.
From the point of view of method, or of the presentation of the question, the decisive point for grasping this is to get a good hold on the concept of “differentiation.” Chairman Mao’s theory is a theory of the differentiation of the three worlds.
The theory of the differentiation of the three worlds does not ignore the character of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and forget the historic mission of the proletariat; it is not a substitute for the operation of the four fundamental contradictions and it does not ignore class analysis.
Instead it is a comprehensive sum up based on a study of the political and economic status of each country in the international context and of the operation of all the fundamental contradictions in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. It is a scientific conclusion regarding the present day strategic situation. Like the differentiation of world political forces arrived at by Lenin and Stalin in earlier historic periods of the present era, it is the basis on which a revolutionary party can identify the main features of revolutionary strategy, in particular the main enemy and the main and middle forces, and the direction of the main blow.